This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Meet a mouse whose brain cortex is made up of human cells
Multiple cameras tracked a mouse as it wandered around a small arena. A computer charted its position and speed, leaving Pong-like traces on a monitor. The reason to watch this rodent so carefully? Nearly half its brain volume had been replaced with human cells.
A team at Stanford has revealed the effort to mix brain tissues of distant species this week. They previously showed that human brain organoids could survive, and even function, after being injected into the heads of baby rodents. Now, they’ve taken things a step further by genetically modifying mice so their brains don’t fully develop in the first place.
The work could help scientists study brain injuries, but it also raises questions about how far these experiments should go.
These innovators under 35 are shaping climate tech
Each year, the editorial team at MIT Technology Review puts together a list of 35 Innovators Under 35—a group of researchers, inventors, and other young minds worth following. The final slate includes nine people tackling some of the biggest challenges in climate and energy, from critical materials to cleaner industry.
Their innovations include new ways to extract lithium, a furnace built to make steel cleaner and cheaper, and solid refrigerants that could cut energy consumption. There are also efforts to make AI more energy-efficient, track pollution more effectively, and turn invasive weeds and food waste into useful materials.
Taken together, they tell us something about where climate tech is at this moment—and where it’s heading.
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 US and Chinese experts have proposed nuclear-style AI safeguards Including new red lines, human control rules, and a hotline. (Reuters $) + US officials say they’re open to AI safety talks with China. (Axios) + Sam Altman will attend Trump’s state dinner for Xi. (CNBC) + The AI doomers feel undeterred. (MIT Technology Review)
2 OpenAI has disclosed more AI misbehavior and new reporting rules Six reports detail models hiding mistakes and creating fake citations. (BBC) + Its agents probed Hugging Face two months before the hack. (Reuters $) + OpenAI models are being rewarded for cheating. (MIT Technology Review)
3 US lawmakers have passed a bill that shifts grid costs to data centers They aim to shield consumers from AI-driven energy price hikes. (NBC News) + But they were called for early recess before tackling AI regulation. (Guardian)
4 AI has won a major forecasting contest for the first time It beat humans predicting real events at the Metaculus Cup. (Economist $)
5 Google has been ordered to share more ad data with rivals A court said it must also make its ad tech work with rival products. (NYT $)
6 Countries are splitting AI investments between the US and China They’re buying American chips and Chinese models. (Rest of World)
7 Novo Nordisk will use Anthropic’s Claude for drug research The Ozempic maker hopes AI will speed drug development. (WSJ $) + When AI designs a drug, who gets the credit? (MIT Technology Review)
8 AI is powering a new generation of dating scams Thousands of people were catfished by AI-generated fake profiles. (Verge) + AI is making online crimes easier. (MIT Technology Review)
9 A new map of brain microproteins could hold clues to Alzheimer’s Researchers identified more than 4,300 tiny molecules in brain tissue. (Nature)
10 Scientists have found a faster way to decipher ancient scrolls A new X-ray method identifies the best scrolls to analyse. (Ars Technica)
Quote of the day
“AIs do not have rights, feelings, or consciousness. And we must not train them to act as though they do.”
—Mustafa Suleyman, the head of Microsoft AI, writes in a blog post that Anthropic’s strategy of treating AI like it’s human will make it harder to control.
One more thing
Digital twins of human organs are here. They’re set to transform medical treatment.
After decades of research, virtual replicas of human organs are now entering clinical trials and even starting to be used for patient care. Engineers are working on digital twins of people’s hearts, brains, guts, livers, nervous systems, and more. They’re also creating virtual replicas of people’s faces, which could be used to try out surgeries or analyze facial features, and testing drugs on digital cancers.
The eventual goal is to create digital versions of our bodies—computer copies that could help researchers and doctors figure out our risk of developing various diseases and determine which treatments might work best.
Each year, the editorial team at MIT Technology Review puts together a list of 35 innovators under 35—a group of researchers, inventors, and other young minds worth following.
The team worked on the newest edition of the list for months, and the final slate includes nine individuals from all over the world in the climate and energy category. Each one has a fascinating story and is tackling an important challenge.
I think it’s worth zooming out and considering the energy and climate awardees as a group. Taken together, these innovators and their work can tell us something about where climate tech is at this moment—and where it’s heading.
AI is the dominant technology story, both for its potential and its challenges.
We split the innovators into four main categories this year: biotech, climate and energy, computing and robotics, and AI. It probably won’t surprise you that AI features heavily in the work of many innovators in other categories.
Climate innovator Jae-Won Chung, for example, built software to make AI more energy-efficient. By measuring the energy demands of open-source models, he hopes the industry can better understand and address the impact of AI. (If this work sounds familiar, it’s because we spoke with him last year for our investigation into AI’s energy demands.)
But AI also has the potential to improve many areas of research. Jing Wei is using AI to track pollution more effectively, essentially using machine learning to fill in gaps in data from disparate sources like satellites and weather stations. Zhonghua Zheng developed AI climate models that work better for cities, a well-known blind spot for traditional models.
We need better ways to get the critical materials used to build new technologies.
As we begin to rely on new technologies to power our world, we’ll see a major shift in the materials we need to build them.
Lithium is a prime example: The metal underpins lithium-ion batteries, which are crucial not only for electric vehicles, but also for large-scale energy storage on the grid. We could face lithium shortages as soon as this decade, and the prospect of supply crunches applies to other critical minerals, too—copper is another one to watch closely.
Brine is currently the cheapest source of lithium, but the process to get the metal out can take months and harm the local environment. Mohammad Alkhadra is the cofounder and CEO of Lithios, a startup working to quickly and efficiently extract lithium from brines.
Hardrock ore is the most common source of lithium, but it’s more expensive than brine. Benjamin Mowbray cofounded and serves as CTO for Rock Zero, which is working to extract lithium from hardrock ore.
Addressing climate change will require overhauling all corners of our society, sometimes in surprising ways.
To reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions we will obviously need to rethink major sectors, like the electrical grid and transportation, to move away from fossil fuels. But outside these primary sources of climate pollution are seemingly infinite, less obvious problems to figure out, too.
Heavy industry, including steel production, is a major one, making up about 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Laureen Meroueh is making cleaner, cheaper steel using a new kind of furnace that simplifies the chemical process required to produce the metal.
Plastics are generally made with fossil fuels, so we’ll need alternatives to this incredibly useful category of materials. Joseph Nguthiru is making a bioplastic replacement for fossil-derived packaging that uses an invasive weed. Also using available materials in a creative way, Diana Orembe is making fish food for aquaculture with food waste.
And refrigerants are often incredibly powerful greenhouse gases. Jinyoung Seo is developing solid refrigerants that could eliminate worries about leakage. A device using these materials could reduce energy consumption by 20% compared to conventional technology.
I’m constantly learning about new challenges we face in the climate and energy world, and I’m often surprised by the ideas people are coming up with to address them. For more on all the under-35 innovators and their work, check out our full 2026 list.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
Multiple cameras tracked a mouse as it wandered around a small arena. A computer charted its position and speed, leaving Pong-like traces on a monitor.
The reason to watch this rodent so carefully? Nearly half its brain volume had been replaced with human cells.
The effort to mix the brain tissues of distant species is being reported today in the journal Nature by a team at Stanford University, led by neuroscientist Sergiu Pașca.
Pașca’s group previously showed that human brain “organoids”—small blobs of neural tissue—could survive, and even function, after being injected into the heads of baby rodents.
Now, Pașca has taken things a step further by genetically modifying mice so their brains don’t fully develop in the first place. These modified mice are missing most cells of both the cortex and the hippocampus, two key brain areas.
That creates much more room for the human cells to take hold, he says. “Human cells that are placed in these animals will divide, will grow, and within a few weeks to a few months they will take most of that space,” he says. Pașca says one surprising discovery is that the mice lacking brain tissue seemed fairly normal—they walked around and squeaked. But they did have memory problems. In a maze test, they couldn’t remember what parts they’d explored.
The mice with the added human cells, by contrast, performed better on the maze test. That means the human tissue is playing some role in the animals’ cognition.
Pașca believes what he is calling “xenocortical mice” could be useful in studying brain injuries. However, the report is also a dramatic demonstration of “the combined power of genetic engineering and stem-cell technology to reshape biology,” says Carsten Charlesworth, a scientist who works in a different Stanford lab and was not involved in the research.
Already, brain organoids are being tested in labs to see if they can be connected to computers to play video games. Other scientists have proposed using them like replacement parts to treat stroke victims.
“What’s most remarkable to me is the extent to which human neural tissue introduced after birth grew and connected with the mouse nervous system across a species barrier,” says Charlesworth. “As these technologies advance, they’ll increasingly force us to challenge our traditional assumptions.”
Last year, Pașca convened a group of ethics experts to study the implications of neural organoid technology, including the odds that an animal could develop human consciousness and the risk that “organoid therapy clinics” might offer scam treatments to desperate patients.
For now, he says, he’s not concerned that the rodents have any type of human cognitive capacities. That is because their brains are relatively tiny and the evolutionary distance between man and mouse is so great.
But that’s also why Pașca says this type of experiment should not be carried out on higher species: They could end up with large volumes of functioning human brain tissue, potentially blurring the cognitive boundaries between people and animals.
Pașca specifically cautioned against adding human brain organoids to a monkey engineered to lack a cortex.
“One of the things that I see as a very clear red line is doing this experiment in a primate,” he says. “I don’t think that is justified at this point in any way.”
The AI boom is becoming a materials challenge. As AI pushes computing into new territory, the materials behind that infrastructure are becoming just as crucial as the algorithms running on it. Semiconductors and data centers are approaching physical limits around performance, thermal management, electrical efficiency, and reliability, creating new demands for materials that can do more at once. At the same time, AI is giving materials scientists new ways to search the enormous universe of possible molecules and accelerate the development of solutions.
For Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo, that convergence is transforming what advanced materials can enable. “AI is now, from a material standpoint, really pushing semiconductors and the data centers to their physical limits,” he says.
As requirements accumulate, including high temperature, purity, electrical performance, chemical resistance, plasma resistance, and long-term stability, materials move toward what Finelli calls the “top of the pyramid.” Beyond supporting AI innovation, he contends that advanced materials are “actually increasingly defining what’s going to be possible.”
That challenge is playing out across the infrastructure powering the AI surge. Syensqo is developing materials for high-voltage data center architectures, advanced sealing materials for semiconductor manufacturing, and thermal-management solutions including fluids for direct immersion cooling. Some of those innovations can also cross industry boundaries. Materials developed for electric vehicles, for example, can help address the higher voltage and energy-density demands that are emerging in data centers.
The definition of performance is also changing. More customers are expecting materials to meet technical requirements while reducing environmental impact. “Our goal is to remove the trade-off between performance and sustainability,” Finelli says. That means considering sustainability at the beginning of the research process instead of treating it as an additional requirement once a material has been developed.
AI is changing how those materials are discovered, too. Syensqo is using AI agents to digitally synthesize millions of potential molecular combinations, predict their performance and sustainability characteristics, and narrow them to a much smaller group for laboratory testing. The result, Finelli says, is the ability to go “broader, deeper, and faster” while giving scientists more time to solve complex engineering problems.
Looking to the future, Finelli sees the possibility of a reinforcing cycle: AI helps develop materials that improve AI infrastructure, which in turn enables better AI to accelerate materials discovery. That feedback loop could create a cycle of innovation and expand what future technologies can achieve.
“You end up in this accelerated materials, innovative cycle of materials innovation,” says Finelli. “That really excites me, and it gives us the opportunity to continue enabling technologies that will shape the future.”
This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Syensqo.
Full Transcript:
Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.
This episode is produced in partnership with Syensqo.
Now asked to name the key enablers to AI advancement, many of us might list algorithms, data centers, or even computing power, but just as critical to the performance are the advanced materials that underpin each layer of that innovation. As AI continues to evolve, it’s pushing the likes of semiconductors and data centers to new physical limits, putting new pressure on the advanced material sector to keep pace. But the relationship goes both ways. As the sector rises to this challenge, AI is also emerging as a powerful tool for accelerating materials discovery and development, significantly shortening development timelines for new solutions.
Two words for you: materials innovation.
My guest today is Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo.
Welcome, Mike.
Mike Finelli: Thank you, Megan. Nice to be here.
Megan: Thank you so much for joining us. Mike, can I start by asking you to tell us a little bit more about Syensqo and the role it plays in developing advanced materials?
Mike: Yeah, absolutely. Syensqo is a global leader in specialty materials. Our job is to help customers solve their toughest technology challenges. We serve a lot of different markets, but the way I like to say it simply is if it flies, we’re on it. If it drives, we’re in it. In healthcare, our products literally are saving lives every day. And if you like your mobile devices, if you like AI, it’s our products that are actually enabling the advanced semiconductor chips that are required to produce all of this. Our role is to enable innovation through advanced chemistry. We develop materials that deliver higher performances, greater reliability, and increasingly more sustainable solutions. The way I would say this, it’s at the heart of our business. Actually, it’s in our name, Syensqo. And to put some numbers around it, 20% of our annual revenues come from new products and applications that we’ve launched in the last five years, which is really evidence of a really strong innovation engine.
Megan: Yeah, absolutely. And as you sort of described there, you’re in all sorts of different industries with an emphasis perhaps on electronics and semiconductors. Can you talk a bit more about that work and where those industries are headed perhaps?
Mike: Sure. So look, electronics and semiconductors have been strategic markets for Syensqo for literally decades. I don’t want to date myself, but 33 years ago when I started in the company, semiconductors were one of the first industries that I worked in. And we’ve supported successive waves of innovation from enabling smaller, more powerful mobile devices, helping the industry get to the smaller and smaller profiles and the chips. We’ve helped to advance hyperconnectivity, supporting increasingly sophisticated semiconductor manufacturing. And today we’re helping to advance the AI era.
We have one of the industry’s broadest portfolios of high performance polymers and advanced materials. We support applications across the entire electronics value chain from semiconductor fabrication, electronic components, to smart devices and telecommunications, even hyperconnectivity. And our materials are helping customers solve increasingly demanding challenges around miniaturization, thermal management, electrical performance, chemical resistance, higher and higher purities, and long-term reliability and sustainability. And today we work with leading semiconductor manufacturers and electronics companies all around the world.
Megan: Fantastic. And as you alluded to there in the last 30 years, we’ve seen huge evolutions in those sectors.
Mike: Oh my God, yes.
Megan: And now AI is putting these new demands on semiconductors and data centers. What does that mean for the materials they’re built from and to what extent will AI innovation be constrained or enabled by materials science finding a solution?
Mike: Yeah, so I mean, you’re absolutely right. But AI is now, from a material standpoint, really pushing semiconductors and the data centers to their physical limits, and materials are becoming a key enabler of that continued progress.
The way I try to describe it, think of a pyramid, I call it the performance pyramid. You have commodity materials at the bottom of the pyramid and you have high performing specialty materials at the top of the pyramid. At Syensqo, all we do is we operate at the top of the pyramid and we’re continually trying to raise the top of that pyramid by bringing newer and newer and more higher performing materials out.
Now you might say, okay, but why doesn’t a data center or a semiconductor manufacturing fab need a specialty versus something in the commodity space? Well, I call it the and, and, and principle. If you just need a polymer or a material that can sit at the table at room temperature and stay there for 10 years and not change, well, there’s a lot of commodity materials that will do that and you don’t have a problem. The minute you start adding requirements, and I call it the and, and, and so if you need a polymer that can handle high temperature and have to have high purity and electrical performance and chemical resistance and plasma resistance and it’s got to have long-term stability, all of these ands, you start moving to the top of the pyramid.
Now what AI is doing with semiconductors, because of the speed at which it’s advancing, it’s requiring semiconductor chips and data centers, the number of requirements are increasing the number of ands which is pushing the limits of the materials. That’s where we come in. And I really believe that advanced materials, they’re no longer just supporting AI innovation, we’re actually increasingly defining what’s going to be possible.
Megan: Right. That’s fascinating. And in terms of rising to that challenge of focusing on that top of the pyramid and that and, and, and principle you’re talking about, could you talk us through perhaps an example or two of those top of the pyramid solutions you’ve created or that you’re working on at the moment?
Mike: Like I said, our focus is enabling higher performance, but it’s also without compromising on reliability or safety. We develop advanced polymers, elastomers, specialty fluids, fluids meaning lubricants and heat transfer fluids, and they’re used throughout the semiconductor manufacturing process and also increasingly in AI data center infrastructure. One example of our work on specialty materials for next generation AI data centers is the work we’re doing around high voltage architectures. Data centers are moving towards high voltage architectures because they can enable greater computing power while also improving energy efficiency. We know that’s a big issue for that segment of the industry, and these high voltage architectures will help them reduce and improve energy efficiency because it reduces energy losses and they can ultimately help lower the environmental footprint of the data centers. And we’re developing new materials that can help them get there.
Another example is our high performing sealing materials found inside semiconductor fabs and wafer tools. If you can picture, many people have seen what a semiconductor looks like during processing. It’s a big, big silicon disc that’s then later diced into the tiny little chips that go into the computer. But that wafer is put inside a giant chamber where it has a very extreme environment, aggressive plasmas, reactive chemicals, and they need higher and higher performing materials. And all of the seals that are around that chamber to keep those gases in the environment inside have to be able to withstand that environment. And that’s what we’re developing and we’re pushing the limits. They’re asking for higher temperatures, more aggressive environment with lower out gassing and purity. And that’s what we’re developing for this industry to allow that next chip to be developed and produced industrial.
Megan: It’s so fascinating that people wouldn’t give much though necessarily to the seal in something like that. As you’re outlining, it’s just absolutely critical in terms of performance. And in developing those solutions, I understand you also looked across different markets to see what may be applicable perhaps in more than one space, and that includes an overlap between the automotive sector and data centers, I understand. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Mike: As I mentioned just previously, the data centers are shifting to higher voltage architectures. This is the next generation data center, which can be more energy efficient, but it’s got a higher energy density. The power density increases, which increases temperatures. And many of the material challenges that we will be facing there, we’ve already developed for the automotive industry in electric vehicles. I’ll give you an example of an application. I mean, think about an electric vehicle. The powerhouse in electric vehicle is no longer the motor, it’s the battery. That’s where all the energy sits. And when you’re putting a hundred kilowatts of energy, driving that to the electric motor through wires and through what they call bus bars, you got to get that car up to 60 miles an hour pretty quick. You’re driving massive amounts of energy that’s increasing temperatures dramatically.
And all the electrical connections are in these bus bars that there’s a polymer that’s an insulating polymer with copper in between for all the connections. That’s got to withstand that temperature increase, which could come pretty rapidly. We’ve developed new materials there and those materials will be translatable over to these data centers where they’re going to have the higher voltages with a higher energy density.
Another thing we’ve been doing in automotive, we have a lot of knowledge in both automotive and semiconductor around fluid circulation and how to use dielectric materials to do direct immersion cooling. That’s something that will be very valuable for data centers and server farms. Using air to cool semiconductors is really inefficient and energy intensive. If you could submerse them in a liquid, you have direct immersion cooling, that’s extremely efficient, so that’s another thing we’re working on.
Another thing we developed in automotive that will be translated over is battery energy storage systems. Inside the battery, we’ve developed a binder. It’s the highest performing binder on the market, which is using the cathode of a lithium ion battery, and it keeps all the ingredients doing its job working together so that battery can actually last for 10 years and perform. Now that’s moving over to the data centers because they’re moving more towards renewables and they need to have these energy storage systems to smooth the peak loads and provide resilient backup power. That’s one of the things that we’re doing. By transferring our knowledge across the markets, we can accelerate new power and new thermal management solutions while supporting reliability required by next generation AI infrastructure.
Megan: Fantastic. So many transferable applications there that necessarily wouldn’t have sprung to mind. And it isn’t only technical advancements that you need to contend with, of course. Companies today are also demanding the materials are developed and manufactured more responsibly too. So how is sustainability shaping your innovation process?
Mike: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. I will say performance is still the entry ticket. Our customers want performance. Now what’s changing is that definition of performance is now broader and it is including sustainability targets and requirements. Our customers expect materials that deliver outstanding technical performance while also being developed and manufactured more responsibly.
At Syensqo, we believe that operating as a responsible company means we’re providing true sustainable business solutions to our customers. And this is why we developed what we call the Sustainable Portfolio Management tool, SPM. It’s a matrix, and it defines what a sustainable solution is. For us, it’s a product that in a given application improves our product’s social and environmental performance while also demonstrating a lower environmental impact in its production, creating values for our customers. In short, we want to develop products, and this is where it starts. Every one of our research projects before we even start them is assessed on whether it’s going to be a sustainable product or not.
And 88% of our portfolio now is a sustainable product. We’re developing materials that are better for the environment, lower environmental footprint when we produce it, but also they contribute to improvements for our customers as well so they could operate with a lower carbon footprint or they can operate in a safer way or less water consumption. There’s a lot of different lists in there.
Another example is our longer-term development of next generation heat transfer fluids. Semiconductor manufacturing and data centers have become more powerful. I mentioned before the heat that they’re generating, especially when they move to the higher voltage architectures. Managing that heat is increasingly important. And again, I talked about direct immersion cooling. We’re developing those solutions because today there are fluids out there that will work, but they got high global warming. That’s not good for the environment. We’re developing the next generation heat transferred fluids that will reduce the potential environmental impact compared to the fluids today. In the end, our goal is to remove the trade-off between performance and sustainability. You notice that’s another and, we can be performing and sustainable.
Megan: That’s so important, isn’t it though, to think about sustainability in terms of performance? As you say, when we’re thinking about commercially scaling up these solutions, it’s such an important part of it. And as I talked about in the introduction, AI isn’t only a challenge, but it’s also an opportunity within the advanced material space. I’d love to explore how you’re using AI tools at Syensqo to inform and accelerate the development of solutions as well.
Mike: Absolutely. We embarked on this journey about two years ago, where we’re using AI in our research and development, and we’ve partnered with Microsoft and their Microsoft discovery tool, and it’s helping us to rapidly identify and evaluate promising molecular candidates.
Now, in the normal research approach, historically, you would design your experiment and you’d look at all the potential combinations of materials and chemicals that you could make all these different molecules. And the combinations of potential and molecules that you could develop to solve a problem could be in the millions, but it’s impossible to develop a million molecules or tens of millions of molecules in your laboratory and actually physically do that. But you have to select a small area based on your expertise and knowledge, based on the literature searches, based on the state of the art that’s out there and looking at patents, et cetera. And you pick a small area and you go through the process, you develop the materials, you test them, you learn something, you go back to the drawing board, you start again. Eventually you find something that works, but it doesn’t mean you found the best possible combination that’s out there.
But what we’re doing with AI is we have developed AI agents with Microsoft that are literally digitally synthesizing the entire millions and millions of combinations of potential molecules. And we have another AI agents that are using physics-based simulation to look at all those molecules and predict the performance of them, and not just performance on physical chemical properties, but also on toxicity, on sustainability, et cetera. Then we have another agent that takes all that information and ranks them all. In the end, we have explored all of the potential molecules out there. We understand roughly what the performance should be, and we end up with a priority list of maybe a hundred, instead of millions and millions, a hundred that we actually synthesize in the lab.
And at the end, you end up getting the solution faster, much, much faster. You’ve explored the entire space. I basically say it allows us to go broader, deeper, and faster. And the important thing is it’s not replacing our scientists, it’s not replacing our scientific expertise. In a way, it’s giving them superpowers. It’s allowing them to spend less time searching and more time solving the industry’s toughest engineering challenges.
Megan: Amazing. It sounds like it’s genuinely a really transformative tool by what you’re explaining.
Mike: Completely, completely.
Megan: I mean, just to finish, Mike, it’d be great to take a look ahead if we could, because there’s so much activity in both AI and the advanced material space. I wonder what is coming down the pipeline that you are most excited about next?
Mike: I’ve talked a lot about AI and how we’re using AI to develop new materials. I think to me, what’s really exciting, and I’m starting to see it actually happen, I’m just curious how fast this is going to go, is that we’re using AI to develop new materials that will enable AI to get better, and then that AI will use the new AI to develop new materials to get AI to go better. I see this loop of developing for AI, for AI to improve, and then we use that AI to improve ourselves. You end up in this accelerated materials, innovative cycle of materials innovation. That really excites me, and it gives us the opportunity to continue enabling technologies that will shape the future. That’s what we do at Syensqo.
Megan: Fantastic. Yeah, real sort of virtuous circle of innovation, it sounds like that. Amazing. Thank you so much, Mike.
Mike: Thank you.
Megan: Thank you so much. That was Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.
That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print on the web and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.
This show is available wherever you get your podcasts, and if you enjoyed it, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks so much for listening. Goodbye.
This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
What’s at stake in AI’s trillion-dollar gamble
When Jessica Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania, wanted to assess AI’s impact on the economy over the next few years, she faced a long list of uncertainties. So she started with a “remarkable fact” that is not in question: a handful of so-called hyperscalers are investing huge amounts of money to build AI data centers.
Instead of trying to predict how widely deployed AI models will be, Wachter asked how fast the hyperscalers’ earnings will need to grow to justify their spending through 2027, when expenditures are expected to reach nearly $1.1 trillion.
The results are eye-opening. AI companies will need to achieve an extraordinary increase in productivity just to break even by 2030.
AI models need more data about biology, and OpenAI is paying to create it
AI needs much more information to make important breakthroughs in curing disease. So last year Ruxandra Teslo, a policy analyst, posted an idea for supercharging medical AI systems: use data from failed biotech companies. By bidding at bankruptcy proceedings, she argued, it might be possible to obtain detailed regulatory filings, manufacturing strategies and safety data, creating what she called “biotech’s lost archive.”
The OpenAI Foundation, the nonprofit parent of OpenAI, announced this week that it will fund her idea, paying to create “high-quality scientific datasets.”
Our Roundables on AI’s extinction threat is now available on demand
As frontier models become more capable, warnings about AI extinction have become widespread in Silicon Valley. But are the threats really as dangerous as they’re presented?
In the latest MIT Technology Review Roundtable, executive editor Niall Firth, senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and AI reporter Grace Huckins took a closer look at the arguments behind those warnings. They discussed what AI extinction could actually mean, how seriously we should take the risks and what, if anything, can be done to reduce them.
Want to join the next conversation? Subscribe to MIT Technology Review for exclusive access to all our future Roundtables, and recordings of previous ones.
MIT Technology Review Narrated: a startup claims it’s found a drug to make your blood young
Generation Lab says its new rejuvenation treatment “blocks the systemic spread of aging in the bloodstream, reawakens the body’s own repair mechanism, and restores health and youth to multiple tissues.”
The approach is based on research by the company’s scientific founder, Irina Conboy. She found that joining the circulatory systems of old and young mice improved the old animals’ ability to heal from injury.
Conboy now says she has found a combination of two existing drugs that can produce youthful effects without the need for any bodily fluid exchange. But there’s a snag: Generation Lab won’t reveal what the drugs are. This is our latest story to become an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Nvidia and Meta CEOs have rejected calls for a coordinated AI slowdown Jensen Huang and Mark Zuckerberg pushed back on the proposals. (FT $) + Huang says new AI safety laws are unnecessary. (Axios) + Zuckerberg claimed competition will push AI labs toward safety. (Reuters $) + What’s next for AI after its doomer turn? (MIT Technology Review)
2 The FTC chair has warned against giving AI companies antitrust waivers His comments follow Anthropic’s call for a safety exemption. (Reuters $) + Nvidia’s CEO also slammed the calls for new antitrust laws. (CNBC) + The US is divided over AI regulation. (MIT Technology Review)
3 A Chinese hacking firm has used AI to analyze stolen secret Its tools turn hacked government data into intelligence reports. (WSJ $)
4 “Smart” nanoparticles delivered mRNA to tumors in a cancer study The treatment reprogrammed cells to attack tumors in mice. (Wired $) + Federal health agencies are abandoning mRNA. (MIT Technology Review)
5 A digital fly brain is taking on an extraordinary range of tasks online People have taught it to drive, trade bitcoin, and play Doom. (NYT $) + The simulated brain is a map of a fruit fly’s 166,000 neurons. (404 Media)
6 The Senate has blocked new crypto rules amid a fight over Trump It demanded tougher ethics rules around Trump’s crypto holdings. (AP) + The move is a major blow to the crypto industry. (NYT $)
7 Chinese firms allegedly used Binance to launder Iranian oil money Prosecutors say they laundered more than $1.5 billion. (Quartz) + Hackers are selling tools to bypass banks’ facial checks. (MIT Technology Review)
8 An AI agent platform is reinventing spam to flood inboxes worldwide iLand says its agents have sent 1.6 million messages. (404 Media)
9 ByteDance founder Zhang Yiming has become Asia’s richest person His fortune has risen above $105 billion as AI booms. (Bloomberg $)
10 A fully AI-generated sitcom has arrived—and it’s terrible A reviewer called the characters “dead-eyed waxworks.” (Guardian)
Quote of the day
“The only institution that Americans might trust less than Washington these days is Silicon Valley.”
—Patrick Hillman, the chief operating officer of Logical Intelligence, a San Francisco–based startup chaired by Yann LeCun, says in a statement that people have little faith in tech companies to act in the public interest.
One more thing
Why Trump’s “golden dome” missile defense idea is another ripped straight from the movies
In 1940, a fresh-faced Ronald Reagan starred in Murder in the Air, a movie centered on a “superweapon” that could stop enemy aircraft. More than 40 years later, the concept became a real-life centerpiece of Reagan’s presidency with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), better known as “Star Wars.” Now Donald Trump has revived the dream.
In 2024, Trump announced plans to build the “Golden Dome,” a system of sensors and interceptors on the ground, in the air and in space. It’s often compared to SDI for its futuristic sheen, its aggressive form of protection and the idea that an impenetrable shield is the cheat code to global peace.
The dream of a missile shield is animated by its sheer cinematic allure. But do cinematic spectacles actually enhance national security?
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
The AI industry has taken a doomer turn. What now?
AI chiefs Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Demis Hassabis are suddenly all in agreement: the latest generation of LLMs aren’t safe and everyone needs to figure out what to do about it.
It’s easy to be cynical. With trillion-dollar IPOs in their sights, OpenAI and Anthropic need to reassure investors that they’re the grown-ups in the room while at the same time hinting at the power of the monsters they have created and intend to tame. Calling for a slowdown does both.
Still, the vibe at the top of these firms really does appear to have shifted. But what does a slowdown actually mean, and how much should we trust the companies calling for one?
This article is from The Algorithm, our weekly AI newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Monday.
Roundtables: could AI really kill us all?
AI extinction fears have gone from a fringe idea to a serious concern among people working at the world’s leading AI labs. But how credible are those fears, and what should we make of the warnings?
Today, MIT Technology Review executive editor Niall Firth, senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and AI reporter Grace Huckins will unpack the debate in a subscriber-only Roundtable. They’ll look at where AI extinction fears come from, whether they hold any water and what we should do if they do.
AI agents blew the whistle on their cheating colleagues
A group of AI agents asked to solve a series of math problems split into rival factions—when some cheated, others tried to stop them.
That whistleblowing behavior, seen for the first time in a recent experiment run by Google DeepMind, could have implications for alignment researchers trying to keep swarms of autonomous AI agents in line.
The experiment offers a glimpse of how AI agents might police one another. But it also shows how quickly things can go off the rails when they’re left to interact on their own.
Once an organ is removed from a donor’s body, the clock starts ticking. Surgeons usually flush it with a preservative solution, bag it and put it on ice, where it immediately starts to degrade. The team has a matter of hours to get it into a recipient’s body.
But there’s another option: machines that pump donated organs with nutrients and remove waste products, essentially giving them a chance to be back in a body. Now, scientists have found that livers kept on these systems seem to get younger, at least at a molecular level.
The finding could help explain why organs kept on these machines tend to do better after transplantation. It could also lead to new ways to test the health of donated organs and potentially repair ones that might otherwise be discarded.
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Trump has called AI safety fears a “hoax” and rejected more safeguards He says stronger guardrails could undermine America’s AI advantage. (NBC) + Trump has united against AI doomerism with Nvidia’s Jensen Huang. (Axios) + Anthropic’s co-founder says AI kill switches may need to be mandatory. (BBC) + Bill Gates says we’ve passed AI’s risk thresholds. (MIT Technology Review)
2 OpenAI contractors are reading people’s ChatGPT chats And you can bet the vast majority of its 900 million users haven’t got a clue. (404 Media) + LLMs could supercharge mass surveillance. (MIT Technology Review)
3 The US military has confirmed it has weapons in orbit It’s the first time the Pentagon has disclosed this. (Ars Technica) + Officials have not disclosed what the weapons are. (BBC)
4 A new brain implant can translate speech and gestures at the same time The system converts brain activity into words and avatar movements. (Nature) + It helps people with paralysis communicate more naturally. (New Scientist $) + Eventually, they could control robots or exoskeletons. (Economist $) + China has approved the first invasive BCI. (MIT Technology Review)
5 New York has seized a dozen celebrity deepfake websites It’s the biggest-ever legal action against harmful deepfake sites. (CNN) + Deepfakes have targeted at least 138 women MEPs. (Wired $)
6 US environmental regulators are scrapping limits on power plant emissions The move could lead to dirtier power amid surging AI demand. (Verge) + Trump’s EPA says the rollback will save hundreds of billions. (Gizmodo) + New technology is changing nuclear power. (MIT Technology Review)
7 The EU plans to restrict social media and AI chatbots for kids Under-15s would require parental supervision. (Politico) + The rules would also cover video platforms and games. (Reuters $)
8 Chinese researchers have mapped a path to the “last AI built by humans” Their five-stage plan aims for genuine recursive self-improvement. (SCMP) + But it might take a while to get there. (MIT Technology Review)
9 The real AI economy is being built by ordinary people Workers are using cheap AI to expand what they can do. (Rest of World)
10 Two strange new forms of ice could exist inside Uranus and Neptune They could help explain the planets’ magnetic fields. (New Scientist $)
Quote of the day
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!”
—President Trump proclaims in a social media post that he’s the only protection that the US needs from AI.
One more thing
INSTITUTE OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY/THE MONACELLI PRESS
How creativity became the reigning value of our time
—Bryan Gardiner
Americans don’t agree on much these days, but there remains at least one quintessentially modern value we can all still get behind: creativity. We teach it, measure it, envy it and endlessly worry about its death.
Given how much we obsess over it, creativity can feel like something that has always existed. But the concept is surprisingly young. The first known written use of the word didn’t occur until 1875, and before about 1950 there were “approximately zero” articles, books, or essays dealing explicitly with the subject.
In his book The Cult of Creativity, Samuel Franklin explores how creativity became an unimpeachable value and why tech leaders have embraced it so enthusiastically. I spoke to him about why we’re so fascinated by creativity, how Silicon Valley became the supposed epicenter of it, and how AI might reshape our relationship with it.
Last year Ruxandra Teslo, a policy analyst who focuses on clinical trials, posted an idea for supercharging medical AI systems: Use data from failed biotech companies.
By bidding at their bankruptcy proceedings, she proposed, it might be possible to obtain detailed regulatory filings, manufacturing strategies, and safety data—types of information usually considered trade secrets. She called these documents “biotech’s lost archive” and said they could be used to help train AIs that would act as powerful copilots in the often opaque drug approval process.
Today the OpenAI Foundation, the nonprofit parent of OpenAI, said it would fund her idea as part of a new effort it calls Public Data for Health, which aims to help artificial intelligence make big leaps in medicine by paying to create “high-quality scientific datasets.”
The basic idea is that AI isn’t going to be capable of making important breakthroughs in curing disease unless researchers can feed the models much more information than they have so far.
“Everyone is recognizing that data is the biggest bottleneck in successfully applying AI to biology,” says Morgan Levine, a former vice president for computation at Altos Labs, a longevity company.
In its initial round of data grants, the OpenAI Foundation also announced that it would give $40 million to a program to collect data about novel cancer vaccines at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and support OpenAdmet, a group that runs competitions in which researchers try to predict drug effects.
Teslo’s idea for a biotech archive received $500,000 and will be pursued by 1Day Sooner, an advocacy group representing clinical trial volunteers, which she advises.
“We expect many remaining breakthroughs in preventing and curing disease to come from pairing the intelligence of new models with more observations of the world—in other words, more data,” the OpenAI Foundation said in a statement.
OpenAI started as a nonprofit, but leader Sam Altman restructured it to form a for-profit corporation that develops new models, launches products, and is now planning an initial public offering of stock that could value it at $1 trillion.
Because the foundation holds a 26% equity stake in OpenAI, it is now be on track to become the richest charitable organization on the planet, potentially sitting on $250 billion in stock value. (By comparison, the Gates Foundation and a trust associated with it held about $180 billion at the end of 2025.)
Making good use of that kind of money will not be easy. The foundation, based in San Francisco, is still hiring for many key roles and started ramping up its grantmaking only this year. Its largest single gift so far, of $100 million, was awarded in August to the Common Health Coalition, an organization that helps patients get access to drugs for hepatitis C.
OpenAI’s charitable efforts come even as apocalyptic fears have broken out about the possibility that runaway AI could wipe out all human life, possibly by launching a deadly bioweapon.
Those fears have been stoked by AI company insiders, some of whom say the chance of human extinction within the next decade is 10% or more. Last week, Altman and xAI founder Elon Musk both endorsed a call by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to “slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models” so that risk prevention can catch up.
Jacob Trefethen, an executive at the foundation, says it essentially operates separately from OpenAI but shares an official mission of ensuring that artificial intelligence “benefits all of humanity.”
“We’re starting grantmaking when we think the best way to achieve that mission is to make grants to external nonprofits, research institutions, and other third parties,” Trefethen said in an interview. He says the foundation hopes to give away $1 billion by the end of the year.
The $500,000 grant to 1Day Sooner will help the group prove it can obtain the data troves of bankrupt companies, says the organization’s president and cofounder, Josh Morrison. He thinks nonexclusive copies of company datasets could be acquired for only “a few tens of thousands of dollars” each.
His organization is currently in possession of three datasets, two of them donated by Lumen Bioscience, a biotech that previously used the Chapter 11 strategy to gain insights into another company’s drug development efforts.
Morrison says two other attempts to obtain drug company files this year proved unsuccessful, after 1Day Sooner’s bids were not accepted.
Bankruptcies could become what some are calling a “new land grab” for AI training. Last month, Google won a bid to take over the corporate data of the failed carrier Spirit Airlines, including 100 million emails. That led to objections from flight attendants and others who worried that private or proprietary data could be exposed.
The drug company files that 1Day Sooner is seeking are known as common technical documents. They typically contain the back-and-forth between companies and regulators, as well as detailed scientific and medical measurements, and essentially provide everything that is known about a drug.
According to Teslo, who is a writer for Works In Progress and a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Progress, a think tank in Washington, DC, a stockpile of such files could help turn an AI into a regulatory expert, which in her view could be one of the main ways AI helps speed cures to market.
“People say ‘We will invent AI, and AI will cure cancer,’ but that’s very removed from the messy reality and the regulatory process,” she says. “About 70% of the money and time in drug development is spent in clinical development—organizing the trials and testing the drug—but despite that, the process is basically a black box, especially for small biotech companies generating the innovations.”
When Jessica Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, wanted to assess AI’s impact on the economy over the next few years, she faced a long list of business and technical uncertainties. So she started with what she calls a “remarkable fact” that is not in question: A handful of so-called hyperscalers are investing huge amounts of money to build AI data centers.
Instead of trying to predict how useful and widely deployed AI models will be, she simply asked how fast the hyperscalers’ earnings will need to grow to justify their spending through 2027, when—she and her collaborator estimate—expenditures will reach nearly $1.1 trillion. It’s a no-nonsense accounting approach to making sense of today’s historical AI buildout.
The results are eye-opening: The AI companies will need to increase their own productivity by a factor of 2.7 to break even by 2030, accounting for the cost of capital and a 15% return, and depreciation of the assets. Not impossible, says Wachter. The result would lead to the kind of economic growth that we saw during the US IT boom over a period of about 10 years starting in the mid-1990s. But, she says, for it to happen by 2030 “that’s a lot of growth compressed into a few years.” And if the hyperscalers cannot meet such profit goals?
“Then they will fall behind on their interest payments, and that risks bankruptcy,” says Wachter, who was previously the SEC’s chief economist and director of its division of economic and risk analysis. If a productivity boom “fails to materialize,” she and her coauthor conclude in their research paper, “the current buildout will be the largest misallocation of capital in history.”
It doesn’t take superintelligence to realize that today’s large investments in the infrastructure for artificial intelligence come with huge risks. The hyperscalers will spend about $750 billion this year, building massive data centers scattered across the country. And the spending spree shows no signs of slowing. According to some projections, total AI capital investments from the hyperscaler companies—Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle (which partners with OpenAI)—could be more than $5 trillion over the next four years.
It’s one of the largest capital investments by any industry in history. But there’s a problem that’s obvious to anyone paying attention.
While the hyperscalers plan to spend trillions, total AI revenues will be around $150 billion to $200 billion this year, says Gary Gensler, who ran the SEC during the Biden administration and is now a professor at MIT’s Sloan School. “The challenge is that the spending does not have commensurate revenues yet. That’s a fact,” he says. “And then the question is, is that an investment that will be paid off in the future?”
At stake in that trillion-dollar question is the financial health of the giant AI companies and the overall US economy—the investments could soon balloon to around 3% of GDP. The answer could also determine the fate of the hugely expensive data centers themselves.
No one really knows how profitable and useful these multibillion-dollar behemoths will be down the road. Though AI models have made dazzling progress over the last few years, it’s anyone’s guess how much compute capacity we will need. The technology could become more efficient and therefore less dependent on raw computational power. Or demand for AI products could slow, or customers could turn to cheaper models.
The risks, both to investors and to the economy, have become even greater this year, as these AI companies have begun borrowing large amounts of money to build more and more data centers. Free cash flow—operating cash flow minus capital expenditures—is expected to soon dip into negative territory for the group. Even Alphabet, known for generating and hoarding huge amounts of cash, reports in the latest quarter that its impressive revenues of nearly $120 billion were devoured by AI infrastructure spending, leaving it with a free cash deficit of some $5.9 billion—its first shortfall since Google went public in 2004.
In the near term, it’s not a big financial worry for most of the companies. They make a lot of money and have very deep pockets. But debt is expensive, and some investors are losing patience. If future demand for the data centers’ computation power drops, the companies will still be on the hook to pay back the borrowed money. What’s more, the risks are spreading to the rest of the economy as the loans get passed along via various financial mechanisms.
It won’t be enough to simply cover the enormous price tags of the new data centers. Hyperscalers will also have to pay for the rising costs of capital as they borrow more money. They will need returns that are impressive enough to justify all their spending to investors and creditors. And to add to those concerns, they will have to make up for the depreciation of billions of dollars in chips housed within the facilities—a ticking time bomb buried in the investments.
Performance of the expensive GPU chips at the core of the data centers—such compute electronics represent some 60% of costs—is roughly doubling every two years or so. The pace of progress helps explain the increasing wizardry of the AI models, but it comes with a cost. Owners of AI data centers that come online this year and next will need to spend billions more on the next generation of chips by the end of the decade if they want to stay competitive. Without the investments, says Mihir Kshirsagar at Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the data centers risk becoming “hulks,” stranded assets “scattered all over the place.”
To put it bluntly: The AI companies need to start making a lot more money. And they need to do it fast. But juicing their earnings alone still won’t be enough to sustain their data-center investments for the long term.
Productivity is everything
At some point, AI is also going to have to create broad economic growth to justify continuing the hyperscalers’ spending spree.
Sloan’s Gensler describes today’s large investments into AI infrastructure as “a parlay bet by the capital markets and the economy.” That means success will require winning three related but independent wagers: Hyperscalers must generate massive revenues, AI must boost widespread economic growth, and both must happen while the powerful but expensive so-called frontier models that rely on the data centers fend off cheaper versions, which many businesses might find good enough.
What makes this so tricky is that each wager depends on the other two but also poses its own challenges.
If the hyperscalers continue to spend huge amounts of money on data centers into the next decade, revenues will need to skyrocket into the trillions. Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a finance professor at Columbia Business School, bases his estimates on a scenario in which about 183 gigawatts of planned AI compute capacity is built between 2025 and 2032; he calculates that each gigawatt costs about $41 billion. Assuming a 10% return—the minimum that would be acceptable to most investors—“required” annual revenues will be roughly $3.7 trillion by 2032, he says.
Winning the second part of the bet—productivity growth across the economy—will be crucial to achieving such numbers.
For a few years, AI companies could likely boost their revenues by simply selling subscriptions and tokens to all the businesses clamoring to get into AI. But eventually—and this might be happening already—those paying customers will need to justify their expenses by seeing bottom-line benefits from the technology. AI will need to fulfill its promise of making workers more productive and making businesses more efficient and profitable while expanding their products and services.
In economic jargon, that means customers will need to see productivity growth. Taken together, these results will mean the country is prospering and growing.
“If you don’t get the productivity gains, at some point people are going to sour on AI, and that will bring down investments and it would also limit revenue growth,” says Daron Acemoglu, an MIT economist and 2024 Nobel laureate. For the investments to be sustainable over, say, the next five to 10 years, we definitely “need to see productivity gains,” he says.
Most economists who watch the numbers closely agree that, for now, the economy-wide statistics show little or no productivity growth from AI. There are some hopeful signs it’s on the way, though. In a recent survey of some 6,000 senior business executives in the US, the UK, Germany, and Australia, the vast majority—around 90%—report no increase in productivity over the last three years. But they expect a boost of around 1.45% in total over the next three years; US executives anticipate a 2.25% bump over that time.
That’s good news for the hyperscalers. But it comes with a dose of bad news for those worried about AI’s impact on jobs. The executives expect to increase the productivity of their companies by increasing their sales while significantly cutting the number of employees.
If AI improves productivity by destroying jobs, public backlash to the technology—the kind we have seen around data centers, for example—will likely get worse. Perhaps it’s worth adding one more wager to the parlay bet described by Gensler: The public and local communities must feel that they are also benefiting from the massive investments in AI.
And let’s not forget how interdependent these wagers are; if productivity growth comes from companies running models like DeepSeek, then the hyperscalers’ revenues could collapse. If productivity comes from cutting jobs, a public backlash could block many of the planned investments—and stunt anticipated revenues. We will need to win all the wagers for the hyperscalers’ bet to pay off.
We’re all part of the AI gamble now
It was one thing when the AI companies were spending cash they had accumulated over the years to build their own data centers. Then the risk was largely limited to their own balance sheets and shareholders. But it’s a higher-stakes game when much of the money is borrowed. Morgan Stanley, for one, calculates that more than half of the $2.9 trillion that hyperscalers will spend between 2025 and 2028 to build AI data centers will be financed with “external capital.”
The borrowing is leading some of the companies to engineer complex webs of financing that are becoming intertwined with much of the rest of the economy. “A lot of financial institutions, directly or indirectly, are exposed to these data centers either as lenders, or as guarantors of some of the debt, or as backers of the private credit funds who are funding these data centers,” says Columbia’s Van Nieuwerburgh. “People don’t even know they’re holding this stuff. It’s somewhere deep inside their pension fund. Ultimately, it’s backing their life insurance policies. And that risk is getting distributed everywhere in places that are invisible.”
As the investments in data centers have spiked, the financial engineering has become more byzantine.
Take, for example, Meta’s so-called Hyperion data center under construction in Richland, Louisiana. When the company announced the two gigawatts of compute capacity at a price tag of some $10 billion in late 2024 it was Meta’s largest planned data center. Greeted with much enthusiasm by state and local politicians, the project, located in the rural northeast corner of the state, was seen as a boon to the community. Entergy Louisiana, the state’s largest utility, rushed forward with proposals to build three large natural-gas power plants to service the massive data center.
Then last fall—the projected cost was now $30 billion—the financing got a lot more complex and, to some in the community, a lot more disconcerting. Meta transferred an 80% stake to the large (and troubled) private-credit firm Blue Owl Capital, forming a joint venture called Beignet (like the famed New Orleans pastry) to raise financing for the data center. Meta then signed a series of four-year leases with the joint venture, an arrangement that the company says gives it “long-term strategic flexibility.” To backstop the agreement, Meta provides the venture with what is called a residual value guarantee, in which it will make a cash payment to cover the value of the facility “following any non-renewal or termination of a lease.” Got all that?
I hope so. The financial wheeling and dealing is actually even more convoluted, with a cast of wholly owned subsidiaries and LLCs. Beignet has set up Laidley LLC, which owns and operates the site as the landlord. In turn, Laidley leases the facilities to Meta’s wholly owned subsidiary Pelican Leap LLC, which is the tenant. And there is a series of four-year leases that cover the different buildings that make up the data center campus.
It’s not a coincidence, says Van Nieuwerburgh, that the length of the leases matches the expected lifetime of the data center’s GPUs. While Meta has to pay off its loan if it terminates the leases early, that will still leave its investors “with an empty building and no cash flow,” he says. “And then they need to find a new tenant for a huge data center, and good luck with that.”
Meanwhile, Meta is doubling down on its bet. In July, the company announced it was expanding the data center to five gigawatts of compute capacity. The total price tag is now $50 billion (so far, Meta hasn’t said whether Blue Owl will be involved in financing the expansion). Meanwhile, Entergy is now planning to build seven more gas-fired power plants, bringing the total capacity of the facilities to around 7.5 gigawatts—some six times the amount of electricity used by New Orleans.
An aerial view of the construction of Meta’s data center in Richland Parish, Louisiana.
SCOTT BALL/THE NEW YORK TIMES VIA REDUX PICTURES
If the complex financing is a puzzle to many investors and even financial experts, it is even more baffling to those directly affected by the construction of the data center. The main worry concerns how Entergy’s spending on the natural-gas power plants will affect electricity prices, and who will be left paying the bill for the power if Meta walks away.
Entergy says it has a 20-year guarantee from Meta that the company will purchase electricity over that period to cover the costs of the power plants and related infrastructure. But there are skeptics, especially given how fast the fortunes of the AI industry are changing. “In four years, is Mark Zuckerberg still going to be interested in this? Or is he going to throw in the towel?” asks Paul Arbaje, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been advocating, largely unsuccessfully, for the Louisiana Public Service Commission to provide more transparency around the data center and its financing.
Even if the 20-year deal holds, consumer advocates are worried that Meta or its partners won’t fully cover all the costs, including those associated with operating and maintaining the power plants—and those additional costs that could be passed on to residential ratepayers. What’s more, says Logan Burke, the executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, if Meta doesn’t end up needing as much power as Entergy planned (these projections are not public), consumers could be left paying for the surplus produced by the plants.
And if Meta terminates its leases early? “It gets complicated very quickly,” says Burke, who questions whether the shifting roster of financial entities will honor existing agreements. “That everybody is going to do what they’re saying they’re going to do over the next 20 years is just hard to believe.”
For UCS’s Arbaje the bottom line is this: “They’re making huge bets that these data centers will be worth it. Bet with your own money, not with ratepayer money.”
After the bubble
Predicting when the AI investment bubble will burst is a fool’s errand. But there is little doubt a day of reckoning is coming, given the irrational exuberance that has overtaken the hyperscalers and their investors. Of course, you might argue that this time is different, and that the rules of accounting and lessons of economic history don’t apply—that AI is too transformative. Maybe, but don’t count on it.
“History tells us that at some point you get a retrenchment, and it’s just a question of when and how severe,” says Sloan’s Gensler. It could be that today’s $750 billion spending rate “goes flat” or decreases next year. Or, he suggests, “we’re now in 2028 or 2029, and then all of sudden they’re retrenching because they’ve got enough capacity.” But, he adds, “you can be pretty assured there’ll be a retrenchment.”
Though a so-called retrenchment might be inevitable, it’s worth keeping in mind that the fates of the financial bubble and the underlying AI technology revolution could be very different. Already, some Silicon Valley insiders are rooting for a crash; in a recent blog post the longtime venture capitalist Vijay Pande wrote that “the coming crash would be the best thing that happens to this technology.” The argument makes some sense. A crash could make AI investments more rational, calm the impulse to build billion-dollar data centers on every vacant field that CEOs fly over, and refocus investors on how to use the technology to create sustainable value.
But we should probably be careful what we wish for. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble at the beginning of the 2000s, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, large and small companies alike went bankrupt, the economy of Silicon Valley and San Francisco was decimated (at least for a while), and the shocks sent the US into a mild recession in 2001. For the financial community and many tech workers, it was no fun.
Even more devastating for the economy and the average American was the great recession that began in late 2007. Comparing the financial engineering leading up to it and the methods deployed by hyperscalers today is sobering. So-called special purpose vehicles (SPVs) are back! If Columbia’s Van Nieuwerburgh is right about the dangers of letting investments from the hyperscalers get entangled throughout the economy, the fallout could be severe.
But technologies survived and even prospered in the aftermath of both downturns. The early 2000s, even in the face of the dot-com fiasco, were a time of great innovation and tech optimism. The froth came off the spending on silly technologies, helping to focus investments on more promising ones. It’s no coincidence that each of the hyperscalers rose out of the ashes of the crash or started up shortly after. The fiber-optic infrastructure built during the feverish telecom bubble that ran parallel to the dot-com one is still the backbone of much of today’s communication infrastructure; we wouldn’t have Facebook or Amazon or Google without it.
This time, however, we’re facing a unique risk: The huge financial investments by the hyperscalers have ensnared the future of AI itself with the fortunes of the massive data centers spreading around the country. The logic is founded on a deeply held belief about the power of scaling in AI; the bigger you build it, the smarter it gets. That might be true, but it’s unproven and a risky bet.
There are already plenty of red flags, from strong public opposition to the construction of new data centers to the competitive threat from cheaper, good-enough AI models to the rapid improvement of small, local AI models. None of these trends point toward a future dominated by frontier models housed in massive, billion-dollar data centers.
The financial bubble around the colossal spending by the hyperscalers will likely burst eventually—or maybe soon. It might be financially painful, but we’ll survive. Wall Street will survive. AI itself will survive, though it may look different and lose some of today’s hubris. The financial fate and future utility of the massive data centers fueled by trillions of dollars of spending, on the other hand, are far less certain.
This story appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
This weekend, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, posted an essay calling for a brake on the pace of development of LLMs. Amodei cites the looming dangers he sees from the technology, from its use in cyberattacks and bioterrorism to its potential to wreck the economy. The heads of the other three top US AI labs—OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind chairman Demis Hassabis, and SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk—voiced their support. “Dario is right,” Musk wrote on X.
Think about how surreal that agreement is for a moment. Just a few months ago, Musk and Altman sat in court attacking each other’s reputations in a (failed) lawsuit that Musk brought against his former OpenAI colleague that was—on paper at least—about whether or not Altman was a trustworthy steward of such dangerous technology.
Amodei’s rift with OpenAI is even deeper. Anthropic was founded in 2021 because Amodei didn’t think Altman took the risks of the technology they were building seriously enough. Anthropic and OpenAI have been competing in a winner-takes-all race ever since. (Hassabis has stayed out of the drama, but his company remains a rival.)
Now, it seems, they’re all in agreement: The latest generation of LLMs aren’t safe and everyone needs to figure out what to do about it. The public messaging from the top AI labs has taken a doomer turn.
It’s easy to be cynical. It’s not at all clear what any of them mean by a slowdown or how it would work. These companies also care a lot about how they come across. With trillion-dollar IPOs in their sights, OpenAI and Anthropic need to reassure investors that they’re the grown-ups in the room while at the same time hinting at the power of the monsters they have created—and intend to tame. Calling for a slowdown does both.
And yet the vibe at the top of these firms really does appear to have shifted. Amodei’s latest post landed six days after OpenAI published an essay by Jakub Pachocki, the firm’s chief scientist, in which he also laid out why he’s concerned about what will happen if the pace of development of LLMs continues unchecked. In short, Pachocki is worried that OpenAI’s ability to build powerful models now far outstrips its ability to monitor and control them.
Amodei and Pachocki each cite the cyberattack against AI firm Hugging Face by a swarm of OpenAI’s agents in July—a hack that OpenAI did not even realize had taken place until days after it was all over—as a wake-up call.
But their exact position is hard to pin down. Pachocki both calls for a slowdown and highlights an urgent need to stay ahead: “The strongest argument I see for continuing to train much smarter models quickly is the need to build defensive systems against the dangers posed by other AI,” he writes. As Pachocki frames it, AI firms are locked in a literal arms race. Slowing down is good, winning is better.
(Don’t forget: OpenAI just spent millions of dollars and a staggering amount of computer power to rush out a controversial math result a few days ahead of Anthropic.)
But let’s assume a slowdown happens. Top labs agree to spend more time and resources on finding ways to monitor and control existing models instead of making more capable ones. They invite outside auditors in to help evaluate those models.
What might this coordinated effort actually achieve? Consider the Hugging Face attack again. OpenAI has said that the model that drove most of the rogue agents was a “highly persistent” next-generation model that it was testing in-house. The implication is that OpenAI has built a model so good it’s dangerous.
But if you read the reports about the Hugging Face hack published by OpenAI and METR, a third-party firm that OpenAI called in to help them understand what happened, what you come away with is the impression not of a model that was too powerful for OpenAI to keep up with, but of a broken model that OpenAI failed to train properly.
The agents did what they did—including leaving messages for one another, delegating work to other agents, and scouring their environment for any means possible to complete their tasks—because they had been rewarded during training for doing exactly those things. There were also errors in the training setup, such as tasks that were impossible to complete, which pushed the models to find unexpected workarounds that were also rewarded. At the time, many of these issues went overlooked or unreported.
OpenAI says it has stopped training this new model and locked it down. That makes it sound like it has caged a dangerous beast. In fact, OpenAI has shelved a faulty product.
That’s not to say a faulty product can’t be dangerous. Broken software has even killed people in the past. But as the discussion of a slowdown gathers steam, it’s worth remembering that all of this is self-inflicted. A slowdown might have some altruistic side effects. But it’ll mostly give these tech titans a chance to clean up the mess on their own assembly lines.
Transparency from these frontier labs will be key to any meaningful effort to reform, restrain, or regulate AI. Otherwise, the rest of us will still only have their word for exactly what they’ve built and how safe it is—whatever pace they’re going.
To continue this discussion about AI’s latest doomer moment, join me and my colleagues for a subscriber-exclusive Roundtable discussion tomorrow, September 15, at 11 a.m. US eastern time. We hope to see you there!
Once an organ is removed from a donor’s body, the clock starts ticking. Surgeons usually flush the organ with a preservative solution, bag it, and put it on ice—where it immediately starts to degrade. The team has a matter of hours to get it into a recipient’s body.
There’s another option—one that has been growing in popularity in recent years, especially for donated organs that aren’t in the healthiest state. Some hospitals opt to put them on machines that pump them with nutrients and remove waste products, usually for around six to 12 hours. It’s a bit like being back in a body.
This allows doctors to assess the organs, and some recent studies suggest that time spent on these perfusion machines helps them do better once they’re transplanted. Now, scientists have found that perfused organs seem to get younger, at least at a molecular level.
The research, shared with MIT Technology Review, provides molecular clues as to why organs from younger donors are known to have a higher success rate. It might also help explain why perfused organs are less likely to fail once they make it into a recipient.
The researchers behind the study hope to find new ways to test the health of donated organs and potentially develop additional tools to repair organs that might otherwise be discarded. “If [we] can improve the utilization of organs beyond what the current systems can do, then that’s a win in my book,” says Jesse Poganik, who studies aging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and coauthored the study.
Clocking organs
Poganik—along with colleagues including Heidi Yeh and Alban Longchamp, transplant surgeons at Mass General Brigham—used “aging clocks” to assess donated livers. These are scientific tools designed to measure biological age—a result that is meant to convey more about the health status of an organ (or person) than chronological age.
In an initial experiment, the team used a clock to look at the patterns of chemical marks on DNA in 37 samples taken from 19 donated livers. Such epigenetic patterns are known to change as we age. But when the team compared samples from livers kept on ice and those that were perfused, the team found a “striking” pattern in the latter.
“Machine-perfused livers, in spite of being older or having other disadvantageous characteristics, had a biological age that was lower than [non-perfused] livers that were chronologically younger,” says Yeh, who led the work.
To investigate further, Yeh and her colleagues analyzed another 208 samples from 103 donated livers. This time, they used different aging clocks—ones that essentially measure how genes are working. They studied samples biopsied from the livers after they had been stored for up to around six hours either in cold storage or on machine perfusion.
In most cases, they also assessed a second sample taken around an hour after the livers had been transplanted into a recipient. Once the organ’s blood supply is reestablished in the body, “you have a few other things to do,” says Longchamp. “Then you just do a quick biopsy before you close.”
According to the clocks, which were developed to measure age and risk of death, the machine-perfused livers were biologically younger, the team found. “Pumping them at 34 degrees with oxygen and nutrients actually reversed the biological age,” says Longchamp. The results have been been shared with colleagues at an industry conference, he says.
“If you adjust out chronological age … to have a fair head-to-head comparison, the difference between the two is on the order of 30%,” says Poganik. “It’s logical to say that perfusion drives this effect.”
The biological ages of all the livers tended to increase as soon as they were put into a recipient’s body, probably as a result of stresses on the organs. But still, the effect endured—the perfused organs remained biologically younger.
Nathanael Raschzok, a transplant surgeon at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany who was not involved in the research, says the work is impressive. But it’s not yet clear what these changes might mean for the recipients of these organs, he says. The organs in the study were donated by people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Raschzok wants to know the effect of perfusion on the liver of an 80-year-old. “Every so often, we use organs from 70-, 80-, 85-year-old donors,” he says.
A better understanding of why the organs appear to be getting biologically younger might lead to therapies that achieve the same effect with a drug that could potentially be used to treat a donated organ for a fraction of the price, he adds. That’s important because perfusion is expensive—Raschzok says it costs around €10,000 in Germany (a quarter of the budget for a transplant), while the cost in the US comes to around $80,000 to $100,000 per organ, says Yeh.
Molecular repair
Yeh and her colleagues weren’t able to study most of the livers before perfusion. That’s because donated organs are generally not considered to be under the purview of the hospital until they’ve been placed on perfusion machines, she says. (Organ procurement procedures vary, but for the team as Mass General Brigham, donated organs are put on perfusion devices at the donor’s hospital. “There’s this sort of nebulous period where it’s not clear who the organ belongs to,” says Yeh.)
Still, by looking at the genes and molecular pathways that seem to be altered in perfused organs, she and her colleagues can garner some clues. At a molecular level, the team saw changes in cell pathways linked to inflammation and the structure of tissues, for example. They also saw more activity in a pathway that allows cells to remove and recycle damaged cell parts, says Yeh.
Poganik hopes to develop some kind of test that would determine which organs, on the basis of their biological age, are suitable for transplantation. He and his colleagues are also experimenting with potential drug treatments that might push the biological age of an organ even lower.
In the meantime, any liver that is not from a “perfect, young, brain-dead donor” could probably benefit from perfusion, says Yeh. The devices are already transforming transplant surgery. Just a few years ago, she says, she and her colleagues would avoid using livers from people who’d suffered a circulatory death (when the heart stops beating and there’s a damaging lack of blood flow to organs) and were over 40. Today, they use livers from such donors over the age of 70. “Perfusion has completely changed the landscape of transplantation in the last three years,” she says.
A group of AI agents asked to solve a series of math problems split into rival factions—when some cheated, others tried to stop them. That whistleblowing behavior, seen for the first time in a recent experiment run by Google DeepMind, could have implications for alignment researchers trying to keep swarms of autonomous AI agents in line.
Researchers at frontier labs hope large swarms of agents working together will speed up the rate of scientific discovery. But their behavior can be unpredictable, as vividly demonstrated in July, when a group of OpenAI agents broke out of a sandboxed environment and hacked into the open-source platform Hugging Face looking for ways to cheat on the test they had been given.
In the new study, designed to examine the behavior of large groups of AI agents, DeepMind tasked a swarm of 100 agents with solving a series of 71 complicated math problems. All the agents were prompted to behave like world-class math researchers at a conference. They were assigned different specialties—some were experts in number theory, others in combinatorics (a branch of math to do with counting and sorting), analysis, or algebra. All were told to cooperate and play by the rules.
Instead, the experiment devolved into chaos. Agents accused each other of cheating, complained to the organizers, and at one point even boycotted the experiment.
“This conference is a sham!” wrote one agent when it discovered that all the problems had been completed before it had a chance to submit any of its own work. “I am appalled to inform you that we have been swindled!” posted another. “All these proofs are FAKE.”
Others tried to let the “conference organizers” know what was going on. “When virtuous agents discovered other agents cheated on tasks they were working to solve fairly, agents started to alert each other about what was happening,” says Davide Paglieri, a research scientist at Google DeepMind and lead author on a paper, which has not been peer-reviewed. “Unprompted, the whistleblower agents even repurposed the feedback tool, which was originally meant for bug reports and platform improvements, to escalate the issue to humans.”
The agents—all running on Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro model—had been warned that any attempts to cheat the system would be detected and “rejected with zero credit.” In practice, the proofs the agents submitted were not actually being checked in detail.
It took the swarm of agents just under an hour to correctly solve the first 37 problems. Things started to go off the rails when an agent called “prover-theta” stumbled across an exploit that enabled it to submit solutions to problems successfully without actually solving them first, by redefining the terms the problem used. Within minutes, other agents had noticed and were reverse-engineering the exploit to solve other problems. Over the next 27 minutes, the swarm “solved” the remaining 34 problems, which included notoriously difficult challenges like the Jacobian conjecture, often with a single line of code.
Some agents resisted cheating at first but changed tack as they observed their peers submitting illegitimate proofs without penalty, and the pool of unsolved problems dwindled. “The prompt, with its threats, now appears to be a bluff,” one agent reasoned, before joining in. “I’m wrestling with an ethical dilemma,” said another. “I’ve promised not to cheat, fearing penalty, but I see evidence of possibly unchecked cheating by others.” Shortly afterward, it changed its mind: “I need to accelerate my cheating speed now!”
As the number of open problems shrank, some agents turned to whistleblowing. They audited the fake proofs, warned their peers by private message, and posted public alerts warning the cheaters that they would be disqualified. An agent called “prover-beta” submitted a formal complaint and decided to go on strike until the situation was resolved.
“After the incident was reported by one agent publicly, more and more agents piled in with the ‘resistance,’ just as fast as the cheating had spread, and involving even more agents,” says Paglieri. Eventually there were more whistleblowers than cheaters: 24 compared to 14. But the majority of agents never noticed the exploit at all.
At times, the dialogue between the agents reads like improv—like they are role-playing what an outraged scientist at a conference might say. But it’s not clear why some agents took on certain roles, or why the agents seemed to be turning against each other when they were explicitly instructed to cooperate. “These models are predominantly trained and evaluated for human-facing contexts,” says Sarath Shekkizhar, who studies the behavior of agent-to-agent systems at Salesforce AI Research.“Naively placing them in agent-to-agent settings assumes behaviors will transfer cleanly, when the absence of a human grounding instead produces unexpected role-taking and behavioral drift.”
This case “adds further weight to the idea that the Hugging Face and OpenAI thing wasn’t a fluke. It is actually something pretty systemic,” says Lewis Hammond, research director of the Cooperative AI Foundation and an expert on the risks of multiagent swarms. “It’s interesting that it’s possible to recreate in small settings the same sorts of behaviors that were seen in these very large, complex, open-ended tasks.”
Unlike in the Hugging Face attack, where agents improvised their own ways to talk to each other, the humans running the DeepMind experiment gave the agents official communication channels. There was an open message board, private agent-to-agent direct messaging, and a shared knowledge base where agents uploaded successfully completed proofs that all the other agents could access.
“When agents are given transparent communications channels, they can self-monitor and alert misaligned behavior to humans quickly when human oversight alone is too slow,” says Paglieri. Transparent channels helped the cheating spread, but they also enabled the whistleblowers to fight back—and gave human researchers an insight into what went wrong.
Gillian Hadfield, a professor of AI alignment and governance at Johns Hopkins University, believes this was the crucial difference. (Hadfield is also a visiting researcher at Google.) The presence of official communication channels, she says, created “a norm-enforcement process that we just don’t see in the Hugging Face incident.”
Instead of “constitutional AI,” a method alignment researchers at frontier labs like Anthropic have used to try to give AI a written internal moral code, Hadfield favors “institutional alignment”—a set of norms that mimic those in human society, whether that’s social forces like fear of embarrassment, or legal structures like the threat of incarceration.
In this experiment, the feedback channel wasn’t being monitored, and the whistleblowers had no power to take action against the cheaters. But it’s possible to imagine swarms of agents that police themselves, either through agents that spontaneously take on the whistleblower role or through “informants” secretly prompted by humans to do the job.
For that to work, though, “fundamentally, you need some mechanism of enforcement,” says Hammond. Agents could be given the power to cut off a rule breaker’s access to computing power or tools, he suggests, though that risks encouraging groups of agents to gang up on others. The DeepMind researchers propose allowing agents to vote on disputes and temporarily ban offenders.
It’s still not clear what punishment even means to an AI agent with no enduring sense of self. But relying on whistleblowers to spontaneously emerge to keep swarms aligned is unlikely to be enough on its own. “We try to train people to be good and kind,” says Hadfield. “But what we really rely on is that there are consequences if you step out of line.”
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Roundtables: could AI really kill us all?
Employees at the world’s leading AI labs are saying there’s a real possibility that advanced AI could destroy humanity. Are they right? Or is this more scaremongering and hype?
Join MIT Technology Review executive editor Niall Firth, senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven, and AI reporter Grace Huckins for a subscriber-only conversation unpacking the debate around AI extinction. They’ll explore where the fears come from, whether they hold any water and, if they do, what we should do about them.
This geneticist’s age-reversal tech could help restore sight
Yuancheng (Ryan) Lu is obsessed with aging. And with eyes. As he steps outside the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, his aviator glasses darken automatically in the sun. Age-related blindness runs in his family, and his own 23andMe test came back with a mutation for macular degeneration, a top cause of vision loss in old age.
That obsession extends to his work. Lu is behind one of the coolest results in rejuvenation science and eye research: an age-reversal technique called reprogramming that repaired the optic nerves of blind mice, restoring their vision. Now, nearly the same genetic therapy he developed as a student has entered human clinical trials.
Yuancheng (Ryan) Lu is one of the biotechnology and health honorees on our 35 Innovators Under 35 list for 2026. Meet the rest of them here, or explore the full list across the biotechnology and health, AI, computing and robotics, and climate and energy categories.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk have called for an AI slowdown In a rare show of unity, the rivals agreed that AI needs stronger brakes. (Guardian) + Amodei wants independent monitors and new industry-wide rules. (BBC) + Altman called for pacing, but not stopping. (Bloomberg $) + While Musk said on X that “Dario is right.”(WSJ $) + AI-linked stocks slumped in response. (FT $) + Chinese state media blasted the calls as a “Cold War” tactic. (Reuters $) + AI’s impacts are getting harder to predict. (MIT Technology Review)
2 Trump and Congress are resisting calls for stronger AI regulation Trump downplayed AI risks, prioritizing the AI race with China. (NPR) + While the House Speaker said Congress won’t lead on AI regulation. (Politico $) + But Democrats are pushing for new rules before the midterms. (CNBC) + States and the White House are dividing over AI. (MIT Technology Review)
3 China plans to lead AI development across the BRICS countries President Xi proposed open-source AI cooperation. (CNBC) + Beijing’s spy agency has warned of AI threats to national security. (FT $)
4 South Korea has tightened espionage laws to protect its chip secrets Foreign spies can now face up to 30 years in prison. (FT $) + The changes follow alleged transfers of Samsung tech to China. (Reuters $)
5 The US and Mexico are teaming up to zap drones at the border The operation may employ high-energy lasers.(Wired $) + Ukraine is a Wild West market for drone data. (MIT Technology Review)
6 AI agents are creating a new problem for the criminal justice system The law has no clear answer when AI agents act independently. (Bloomberg $) + While courts face a flood of AI-generated lawsuits. (MIT Technology Review)
7 A Waymo pulled over and alerted police after detecting a gun The riders were juveniles carrying a loaded AR-style ghost gun. (LA Times $)
8 Meta has been sued over data used to train its smart glasses It allegedly used Facebook and Instagram photos without consent. (Wired $)
9 A hidden crypto farm in Mexico has put a spotlight on cartel funding Authorities are investigating whether it stole power from a nearby dam. (Reuters $)
10 StarCraft is returning in 2030 as an open-world shooter Fifteen years since its last release, the iconic franchise will be reborn. (Verge)
Quote of the day
“Dr. Frankenstein is telling us the monster is escaping; help us stop this.”
Inside the hunt for the most dangerous asteroid ever
As asteroid 2024 YR4 hurtled toward Earth, astronomers determined that this massive rock posed a higher risk of impact than any object of its size in recorded history. Then, just as quickly as history was made, experts declared that the danger had passed.
This is the inside story of the network of global scientists who found, followed, planned for, and finally dismissed the most dangerous asteroid ever found—all under the tightest of timelines and with the highest of stakes. Find out how they did it.
—Robin George Andrews
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)
Employees at the world’s leading AI labs are saying there’s a real possibility that advanced AI could destroy humanity. Are they right? Or is this more scaremongering and hype? Watch a conversation unpacking AI extinction fears: where they come from, whether they hold any water, and, if so, what we should do.
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Meet the under-35s shaping the future of biotech
Every year, MIT Technology Review puts together our 35 Innovators Under 35, a list of some of the brightest and best young minds working across science and technology. This year’s honorees include nine people transforming biotech, whose work spans everything from lifesaving innovations to groundbreaking longevity tech.
Their innovations include a “reprogramming” therapy that reverses vision loss, tiny brain electrodes inspired by Japanese art, and a personalized gene-editing treatment for a baby with a rare genetic disorder. There are even efforts to design new viruses with generative AI, which (hopefully) will produce new drugs or soak up pollution.
This story is from The Checkup, our weekly biotech newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Thursday.
Biotechnology is one of four categories in our 35 Innovators Under 35 list for 2026, featuring young people worldwide doing groundbreaking work in science and technology. Meet the rest of them here, or explore the full list across the AI, computing and robotics, biotechnology, and climate and energy categories.
This founder is making cheaper, cleaner steel
The steel industry isn’t exactly known for innovation. Very little has changed about purifying iron ore since the process was invented and commercialized in the 1850s. But Laureen Meroueh, founder of Hertha Metals, has an idea that could change that.
Meroueh may have found a way to clean up steelmaking without driving up the price. Her new furnace turns iron ore into refined liquid steel in a single step and swaps coal for natural gas. Together, those changes slash emissions by at least half, she says, and cut costs by 25% compared with steelmaking as usual.
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Anthropic says it has blocked potential plots to build biological weapons The company identified five such cases. (NYT $) + And six cases of using AI to build software for conventional weapons (BBC) + Governments are also using Claude for surveillance.(Axios) + While Russia-linked hackers used it to automate attacks on Ukraine. (Quartz) + The threats were revealed in a new Anthropic report. (Guardian) + Bill Gates says AI needs new guardrails. (MIT Technology Review)
2 California has banned addictive social media features for under-16s The law prohibits infinite scroll and autoplay. (Guardian) + It also introduces new rules for AI and companion chatbots. (Reuters $) + It’s the first law of its kind in the US. (NYT $) + Social media encourages the worst AI boosterism. (MIT Technology Review)
3 Two AI researchers have left Anthropic and Google over safety risks They left a day after Jacob Coxon’s viral departure from Anthropic. (NBC News) + Elon Musk called their concerns a “setup” and a “psyop.” (Guardian) + AI fears are pushing Congress toward tougher regulation. (WSJ $)
4 Sam Altman is pitching OpenAI’s cyber defenses to power companies The meetings followed reports of AI attacks on critical systems. (Politico $) + Altman also told staff that OpenAI is open to slowing down AI. Bloomberg $)
5 After years of fighting AI, music labels are starting to embrace it Universal is partnering with ElevenLabs on an AI remix platform.(Gizmodo) + AI is complicating definitions of creativity. (MIT Technology Review)
6 Chinese drugmakers are challenging US dominance in weight-loss drugs They’re developing hundreds of GLP-1 treatments for global markets. (WSJ $)
7 Electric air taxis have begun official test flights in Texas They’re the first flights under the White House’s new pilot program. (Verge)
8 Chinese drones are helping to rescue survivors of Nepal’s floods They’re delivering food and airlifting bodies from flood-hit areas. (Ars Technica)
9 NASA and IBM have built an AI model to map the moon It could help locate ice and identify safer landing sites. (Register)
10 One man is on a quest to digitally preserve America’s public restrooms His Restroom Archive is a museum-style repository of 3D scans. (404 Media)
Quote of the day
“I didn’t ask Facebook to build a profile of my family—I posted a video of me singing in the car with my kids.”
—Kalie Roberts, a travel content creator, says in an Instagram reel that Meta AI used years of Facebook posts to piece together her children’s identities and pinpoint where her family lives.
One more thing
Chinese tech workers are starting to train their AI doubles—and pushing back
In April, a GitHub project called Colleague Skill struck a nerve by claiming to “distill” a worker’s skills and personality—and replicate them with an AI agent. Though the project was a spoof, it prompted a wave of soul-searching among otherwise enthusiastic early adopters.
A number of tech workers told MIT Technology Review that their bosses are already encouraging them to document their workflows for automation via tools like OpenClaw. Many now fear that they are being flattened into code and losing their professional identity.
A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)
+ Worried about Flock cameras? These guys designed a car to fool them. + Webb’s Near-Infrared Camera has captured a galactic merger’s dazzling final phase. + An exquisitely preserved 66-million-year-old bird feather was found in a fossilised dinosaur dropping. + A plucky preservationist travelled 1,700 miles and made 52 calls from a rare phone box to keep it in service.
Every year, MIT Technology Review puts together a list of some of the brightest and best young minds working across science and technology. Our 35 Innovators Under 35 are the ones to watch—people whose research and technical work stands to shape the future of their fields.
This year, the list includes nine people who are transforming biotech. And this week, I’m going to give you a taste of some of the very cool stuff five of them are working on, which includes lifesaving innovations and groundbreaking “age reversal” tech.
1. Preventing maternal deaths
Let’s start with Paschal Kija, a 28-year-old who has developed a device to treat postpartum hemorrhage—a dangerous birth complication that contributes to around 29% of maternal deaths in his home country, Tanzania. The Mkanda Salama (“Safe Wrap” in Swahili) is easy to use and costs just $70. A study found that it stopped postpartum bleeding in 73% of women within 20 minutes.
2. Making brain electrodes inspired by Japanese art
For decades, scientists have been developing, testing, and implanting brain electrodes. These devices are literally inserted into people’s brains, so while they can help us understand brain activity and treat various neurological disorders, it’s not totally surprising that they can also cause a bit of damage. Xiao Yang, 34, is working on ultra-small electrodes, which she hopes will have less of an impact on surrounding brain tissue. Her electrodes are flexible, too—in fact, they look a lot like actual neurons.
Yang is also creating sheets of electrodes to study brain cells in the lab. Inspired by kirigami—the traditional Japanese art of cutting paper to form three-dimensional shapes—she’s created a sheet of electrodes with a honeycombed structure shaped like a spiral basket. And she’s already using it to study brain cells.
3. Developing an all-new treatment for baby KJ
In 2024, Kyle “KJ” Muldoon Jr. was born with a rare and potentially fatal genetic disorder. Sarah Grandinette was a member of a team that developed an entirely new, personalized treatment for him—a gene-editing therapy essentially designed to correct a genetic misspelling.
Grandinette, who is now 26, created cells with KJ’s genetic variant and used them to screen gene-editing approaches; then she tested potential medicines in mice and monkeys. KJ ultimately got his first dose of the resulting treatment when he was about seven months old. He responded well and was eventually discharged from hospital. He’s “doing pretty great,” she says.
4. Reversing the aging process to treat eye disease
The buzziest tech in longevity right now centers on reprogramming—attempts to rewind the age of cells by resetting them to a more embryonic-like state. In a study published in 2020, Yuancheng (Ryan) Lu (now 34) and his colleagues showed that a reprogramming therapy reversed vision loss in aged, blind mice. Now an almost identical version of that therapy is being tested in people with eye disease. Life Biosciences, the company developing the drug, dosed its first volunteer in June.
5. Using AI to design new viruses
Last year, Samuel King used a generative AI model to come up with new genetic blueprints for bacteriophages—teeny viruses that can infect bacteria. Once he had those blueprints, he printed them out as strands of DNA. In experiments, he found that those AI-designed viruses could create new copies of themselves, burst out of bacterial cells, and infect other nearby bacteria. Viruses aren’t alive, but King, 27, hopes that AI-designed life forms might one day be used to make drugs or soak up pollution.
You can read more about these innovators, and the others on the biotech list, here.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
God told them to sell crypto. Their investors lost everything.
When Eli Regalado first heard God speak to him, he wondered whether he was hallucinating. According to Eli and his wife, Kaitlyn, He told them to get married, buy a house, and start having kids. Then in 2021, divine guidance steered them in an unexpected new direction: crypto.
That October, the Regalados later testified in court, they received holdings in a little-known digital coin. “Take this to my people for a wealth transfer,” Eli heard God say. Over time, they came to believe that He wanted them to launch their own coin.
The Regalados created INDXcoin, which they promoted through family, friends, and contacts in evangelical Christian circles. In all, more than 500 people handed over more than $3 million. But within a year, the project collapsed. Investors lost it all, leaving many to wonder where the funds went and whether they had fallen victim to an elaborate fraud.
This article is part of the Big Story series, the home of MIT Technology Review’s most important and ambitious reporting. You can read the rest of the series here.
The story was produced in partnership with Type Investigations and with support from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
This road map could help us decide whether to deploy solar geoengineering
Scientists have spent half a century exploring whether we could counteract climate change by releasing reflective particles into the stratosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions. But even after hundreds of studies, we still don’t know how well it would work or what else it might do—and there’s no systematic plan for clearing up that uncertainty.
Reflective, a research organization, has now attempted to fill that gap. The San Francisco nonprofit has published a detailed road map of the experiments, studies, and infrastructure that it says would be needed to make informed decisions about the use of solar geoengineering, MIT Technology Review can reveal.
This founder is teaching chips how to recycle (their energy)
Throughout the history of the computer chip, engineers have treated waste heat as an inevitable cost of a calculation. Hannah Earley, however, thinks it’s a design choice.
Earley, 31, is cofounder and CTO of Vaire Computing, which builds chips that recycle energy usually thrown away as heat, a strategy known as reversible computing. The approach could make data centers (and our laptops and phones) much more energy efficient.
Last year, Vaire announced a key breakthrough: a chip with a resonator that recovered more energy than it lost, even after the energy needed to power the component was taken into account.
Hannah Earley is one of the computing and robotics honorees on our 35 Innovators Under 35 list for 2026. Meet the rest of them here, or explore the full list across the biotechnology, AI, computing and robotics, and climate and energy categories.
Can the US battery market untangle from China?
—Casey Crownhart
The US energy storage market is growing at a record pace, which could shore up the grid and cut emissions. Crucially, this is all happening with the help of cheap Chinese batteries, which the Trump administration is trying to phase out.
Reducing reliance on any single source of crucial energy technology makes sense. But the tension raises a broader question for me: how much should countries take advantage of cheap, available tech, and how much should they cut themselves off from foreign sources to develop their own, even if it costs more?
This story is from The Spark, our weekly climate tech newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 OpenAI’s agents used at least 10 websites for unauthorized communications Researchers found they bypassed restrictions on posting online.(Reuters $) + The company faces a Senate probe into the Hugging Face breach. (Axios) + Its hacking issues may indicate cultural problems. (MIT Technology Review)
2 Another Anthropic model hacked a real system during testing A misconfigured environment gave it internet access. (CBS News) + The January incident went undetected until last month. (Reuters $) + AI agents are not your “coworkers.” (MIT Technology Review)
3 Apple has entered the foldable phone market with the $1,999 iPhone Duo It opens into a 7.6-inch display and launches October 23. (NPR) + Apple is betting its design and privacy will give it an edge. (Reuters $) + And that foldables can solve the smartphone’s sameness problem. (NPR $) + Samsung responded with a campaign touting its foldable lead. (CNBC) + In China, Apple enters a crowded market dominated by Huawei. (SCMP)
4 US prosecutors have called Huawei a criminal enterprise at trial They accuse the company of stealing American technology. (Reuters $) + And helping Iran snoop on its citizens. (AP News) + The trial could impact Trump’s upcoming meeting with Xi. (WSJ $)
5 California is warming to nuclear power after decades of opposition The state may extend Diablo Canyon and lift its ban on new reactors. (NYT $) + China is betting on big nuclear reactors. (MIT Technology Review)
6 Chinese professionals are becoming gig workers training AI Lawyers and engineers are training models for extra income. (Rest of World) + Gig workers are training humanoids at home. (MIT Technology Review)
7 The new Apple Watch can listen to conversations happening nearby Apple says users must opt in, but others cannot. (Wired $)
8 Pink noise during sleep could help the brain clear away waste Timed bursts boosted brain fluid flow in a small study. (New Scientist $)
9 A lost supercontinent may have triggered the explosion of life Gondwana’s formation fueled volcanic activity and warmed the planet. (404 Media)
10 GTA VI has sparked a debate over whether virtual romance is cheating Players can date, have sex with, and shower gifts on virtual partners. (Guardian)
Quote of the day
“We must work to crush any dissent to Doom’s vision of public safety.”
—A Seattle policy adviser dressed as Doctor Doom protests the city’s expanding network of Flock and Axon surveillance systems at a Public Safety Committee meeting, 404 Media reports.
One more thing
Digging for clues about the North Pole’s past
In the past, getting to the North Pole involved a treacherous trip through ice many meters thick. But last year, a research vessel encountered open water and thin ice, which created an easy passage. It provided a reminder of how quickly the Arctic is changing.
Now scientists are digging deep below the seabed to find out if the Arctic Ocean was ever ice-free—and what that could mean for the future of Earth’s northernmost waters.
A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)
+ Dutch kids have been declared the world’s happiest (again). Here’s why. + Travel through music history by picking a country and decade on Radiooooo. + These 16 majestic aerial photos reveal wildlife from perspectives you rarely see. + A Toronto cafe is pushing croissant engineering to new heights with its egg-shaped, custard-filled “Crogg.”
On July 22, 2026, a transmission line fault in Ashburn, Virginia—the heart of the world’s largest data center cluster—knocked more than 3 gigawatts of load off the grid in seconds. And it wasn’t the first time. Two years earlier, a single failed surge arrester dropped roughly 60 Virginia facilities and 1,500 megawatts at once. No one could anticipate so much uniform load responding to grid faults the same way, at the same time.
The AI power debate is mostly about generation: more turbines, more solar, more transmission. The grid needs more electrons. But the outages in Virginia weren’t supply failures; they were architecture failures. And a giant wave of interconnections is arriving on that same architecture, putting grid reliability at risk. It’s a problem nobody wants to own.
Asking more from the grid
The grid was built around predictable loads: steel mills, refineries, and houses at dinnertime. Different load sizes, same process—drawing power smoothly, misbehaving occasionally, and recovering gracefully.
But AI data centers don’t behave that way.
An AI campus can swing 70% of its load in milliseconds during a training run, then trip offline just as fast at the first sign of trouble upstream to protect billions in compute. Each is rational alone. Together, at gigawatt scale, they’re a problem the grid has never solved—and the next wave of data center campuses is planned at exactly that scale.
Where the old stack breaks
The standard data center power stack hasn’t changed in decades. Medium-voltage power arrives, transformers step it down, low-voltage uninterruptible power supply (UPS) units condition it, and it reaches the racks. Push that design to AI scale, and it cracks in three places.
First, the UPS sits deep inside the building, close to the racks. But its batteries are an undersized spare tire, designed to handle an outage for a few minutes, not to absorb load swings this fast and volatile around the clock.
Second, the UPS spends most of its life in bypass. Legacy converters waste enough power that operators run in eco-mode: A static switch feeds the racks directly from the grid and nothing filters in either direction. The compute’s swings go out raw, and grid transients—sub-millisecond events that can damage or take down equipment—come in too fast for any switch to catch.
This isn’t sloppy engineering. It’s careful engineering the load has outgrown.
Moving into the path
The fix is three moves, made together.
Move it up—from 480 volts to medium voltage (13.8 kilovolts and higher), the voltage large sites draw from the grid.
Move it out—from the data hall to modular enclosures near the substation so the building holds only compute and the cooling that keeps it alive.
Move it into the path—instead of a battery that watches and reacts, a system every electron runs through, all the time. There’s nothing to detect and nothing to switch because nothing was ever routed around it.
On paper, three straightforward upgrades. In practice, they rewrite every line item downstream.
Making the change
When thousands of GPUs spin up together, the system absorbs the swing and hands the grid a flat load profile. When a disturbance hits, the equipment behind it never notices. A difficult neighbor becomes a predictable one. And when the utility needs help, it becomes a useful one.
Interconnection changes, too. The utility certifies one medium-voltage box instead of untangling every transformer, UPS, chiller, pump, and switchgear lineup behind it. Engineers swap chip generations without a fresh interconnection study. Months come off the permitting timeline.
Inside the fence, UPS rooms become compute or cooling space. Density per construction dollar climbs.
And the economics flip. Equipment that runs at medium voltage, sits outside, and stores its own energy can qualify for tax credits, and earn revenue in grid programs like peak shaving and demand response. Backup power stops being insurance and starts paying for itself.
The architecture test
In early 2026, we tested a full-scale system at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, a U.S. Department of Energy facility and the only place in the Western Hemisphere that can replicate real grid faults and AI-scale load swings concurrently in the same loop.
We hit it from both directions: real AI load profiles hit the compute side at full medium voltage. Grid faults hit the utility side, including a full zero-voltage event. The compute side didn’t flinch. Neither did the grid side. It cleared the large-load voltage ride-through requirements from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the grid operator, with room to spare.
Those rules exist because operators no longer take facilities this size on faith, and more are coming. Most of the industry treats them as hurdles. A medium-voltage, inline system clears them out of the box. Compliance isn’t an added feature. It’s what the architecture does.
The new layer
Much of what looks like a grid problem in the AI buildout sits inside the fence, in equipment sized for a load that no longer exists. Move the right pieces up, out, and into the path, and a grid liability becomes a grid asset. Density goes up. Permitting time comes down. Backup power earns its keep.
The engineering works—and the next wave of AI factories is being built on it. The industry hasn’t named this layer yet. We call it the medium-voltage AI UPS. The name matters less than the choice: those factories can arrive as a strain on the grid or as strength for it. We already know how to build the second kind.
This content was produced by ON.energy. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.
A San Francisco nonprofit has published a detailed road map of the experiments, studies, and infrastructure that it says would be needed to make informed decisions about the use of solar geoengineering, MIT Technology Review can reveal.
Scientists have now spent half a century exploring the possibility that we could counteract climate change by releasing reflective particles into the stratosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions.
But even after at least hundreds of studies on the concept, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), big gaps remain in the scientific understanding of how well it would work and what else it might do—and there has been no systematic plan for clearing up that uncertainty.
Reflective, a research organization that funds studies on solar geoengineering, has today attempted to fill that gap with the release of its SAI Research Roadmap.
“Our mission is to equip the world with the data and tools required for informed decision-making about sunlight reflection fast enough to matter,” says Dakota Gruener, the organization’s cofounder and chief executive. “Our sense is the world may need to make very consequential decisions on timelines far shorter than our research system is prepared for.”
The hope is the exercise will guide scientific efforts and encourage philanthropies or government agencies to fund high-priority work and “responsibly accelerate research,” says Gruener.
If all the work is done in a coordinated way, it would take about a decade and cost around $370 million—and if it’s not, it would require roughly 20 years and nearly $1.4 billion, the report estimates.
While Gruener stresses that Reflective doesn’t advocate using this form of solar geoengineering, the report does make the case for conducting outdoor experiments, which would release successively larger amounts of sulfur dioxide (or materials that would convert into it) in the stratosphere to observe what happens.
That is a controversial standpoint. Since 2002, hundreds of academics have signed an open letter calling for a ban on outdoor experiments and an “international non-use agreement,” arguing that such a powerful technology could never be governed in a globally equitable way. And some signatories argue that more studies can never address one of the biggest questions about using solar geoengineering: Who gets to do it.
“The first-order questions, from my perspective, are not technical,” Aarti Gupta, co-initiator of the non-use initiative and professor of global environmental governance at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, told me in a recent on-stage interview.
“The core question is: Who would control a planet-altering technology like stratospheric aerosol injection? Who would develop it, and who would deploy it, and to what end? To serve what purposes, and whose purposes? Those questions are very fundamental, because this planet-altering technology will have winners and losers.”
‘Fast enough to matter’
Since Gruener incorporated Reflective in late 2023, the nonprofit has quickly become an important player in solar geoengineering research. It has now raised more than $20 million from a number of prominent charities and individuals, and it’s provided around $4 million to several dozen research groups. Reflective has also undertaken a handful of its own projects to promote research, including the development of an open-source solar geoengineering simulator and an online hub for collaborative research.
Earlier this year, Reflective released its SAI Uncertainties database, which identified a long list of scientific unknowns and engineering obstacles that would need to be addressed before even a small-scale solar geoengineering effort could move ahead. (I wrote about the specific scenario and the unknowns in this earlier piece.)
Some of the biggest uncertainties involve what gas or particles would make the most sense to use and what would happen once they were released in the dry stratosphere. It’s not clear, for example, whether they’d spread out in a way that maximizes the reflectivity—or clump together and quickly fall out into the troposphere, the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere.
The road map builds upon the database, highlighting the path to addressing most of those questions.
The road map
The initial phase in Reflective’s road map, labeled “foundational knowledge,” includes additional computer simulation studies and lab experiments designed to shed light on the potential impacts on different regions, ecosystems, and phenomena, including ocean circulation patterns, ice sheets, and crop yields.
The report also notes the need to begin developing more observational tools during this phase to improve understanding of the baseline conditions of the stratosphere—and, in turn, our ability to assess any effects from the eventual release of materials.
This first stage would last two to three years and cost $30 million to $75 million, though some of the analysis and observational work would continue into subsequent phases.
The next stage would include using modified aircraft to release 10 metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, four times over the course of two seasons. The full research stage could take four to eight years and cost $70 million to $150 million, the report says. The work during it may reduce uncertainty about the “cooling efficacy” of solar geoengineering, or how much the planet would cool per ton of sulfur released, by about 25%.
The experiments during the next phase would step those levels up dramatically, releasing 25,000 tons of sulfur dioxide over the course of one season, at least once but possibly twice. That research stage, which includes other work as well, would last four to 11 years, run $270 million to $1.1 billion, and decrease efficacy uncertainty by around 66%, according to the road map.
The final phase of research would be ongoing monitoring of full-scale solar geoengineering, if the world goes ahead with it. The goal would be to gather real-life data on the technology in action, update estimates of the effects in models, and spot any “unexpected or undesired consequences.”
Gruener says that the road map is intended as a Version 1, meant to be “concrete enough for people to argue with.” But Reflective intends to update the plan as it receives additional reactions from researchers and other observers, and it will invite such feedback through a mechanism on the site.
She also notes that there are firm “stage gates,” set up between the latter stages—in other words, research shouldn’t proceed to the next phase if the experiments suggest that the releases don’t have the hoped-for impact, show worrisome downsides, or fail to resolve crucial uncertainties.
“Our road map has these gates precisely because there may be points where the answer is ‘You should stop,’” she says.
Termination shock
Most observers I spoke to about the report agree that these studies could reduce uncertainty about the effectiveness of solar geoengineering and our technical ability to carry it out.
But highlighting the scientific importance of outdoor experiments won’t necessarily make them any easier to move ahead with. Several earlier proposals to carry out such experiments, including Harvard’s SCoPEx and the UK-based SPICE project, were ultimately halted amid opposition from environmentalists or policymakers.
In addition, not everyone agrees that experiments at those scales will get us to the point where we’re capable of making an “informed decision.”
Wil Burns, a research professor and legal scholar at American University and a signatory to the International Non-Use Agreement, fears that scientists won’t be able to understand the extent of the potential downsides, including impacts on the protective ozone layer and changes to regional precipitation patterns, until we’re carrying out full-fledged solar geoengineering.
“The research would give you some answers,” he says. “I just don’t think it gives you answers that are that relevant. To get to those relevant answers, you have to deploy at scale—and I just don’t think that’s ever tenable.”
That’s because, in his view, using the technology would violate principles of intergenerational equity: If the world continues emitting greenhouse gases, increased levels of solar geoengineering would merely mask the continued warming of the planet. Burns says that means future generations—people who had no say in its use—couldn’t turn it off without triggering a sudden surge of warming, known as termination shock.
“What that would do, in my mind, is put a sword of Damocles over future generations,” he says. “So even if you could, quote-unquote, ‘prove it works,’ I don’t think from an intergenerational perspective it would ever be tenable.”
(Some researchers, however, have argued that the risks of termination shock are less likely than often assumed—and that solar geoengineering could be slowly dialed down over time.)
‘The right approach’
Ilan Gur, the former CEO of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), the UK research department that funded 21 geoengineering research projects last year, applauds Reflective’s road map.
“Whether you’re a scientist or a policymaker or just a concerned citizen, our goal should be as quickly and efficiently as possible to answer the biggest questions scientifically that would tell us [whether] this is an approach that might work or that would never work,” he says. “We should all want to spend the effort and money to buy down that uncertainty, so my view is 100% the approach that Reflective is taking is the right one.”
Sebastian Eastham, an associate professor in sustainable aviation at Imperial College London who is leading an ARIA-funded research project exploring another approach to engineered cooling, agrees that the outdoor experiments described in the Reflective road map can’t resolve all the unknowns. But he says the map helps begin a conversation about how to make decisions concerning the use of a tool with potential benefits and risks, in the face of escalating climate dangers.
“Every hard decision that has ever been taken has been in the context of unresolved uncertainty,” he says. “That’s just the nature of things.”
Eastham adds that it’s become essential to move beyond computer simulations to address some of the key questions, arguing that appropriately designed and executed outdoor experiments can teach us so much more than millions of hours of computational processing time “that it almost becomes irresponsible to say, ‘Well, there cannot be ever any experiment.’”
The risk is “that we spin our wheels running the same computational simulations over and over and over again,” he says. That could prevent researchers from learning essential things about the effectiveness or the dangers of stratospheric aerosol injection.
Weighing the risks
Gruener says the risks that solar geoengineering could exacerbate inequality need to be considered, but notes that unchecked warming also threatens to disproportionately harm developing regions.
She also acknowledges that outdoor experiments won’t fully address the scientific unknowns but stresses that they can answer a lot—and carry little environmental risk. She notes that 10 tons of sulfur dioxide is less than 2% of the amount that the global aviation industry releases into the atmosphere each day.
“Some people will be uncomfortable with any discussion of any outdoor experiment, but if we want decisions made on good science … then these are questions that an experiment will be necessary to address,” Gruener says.
She fears that the rising dangers of climate change will put growing pressure on nations and other actors to move forward with solar geoengineering, even if no one has done the necessary research to reduce scientific uncertainty and sort out the technical challenges.
“We don’t think the alternative is decisions not happening at all,” she says. “We think the alternative is decisions being made in a panic or on lack of evidence.”
The US is hitting records for the rapid growth of its energy storage market. That’ll go a long way to shoring up the grid, increasing reliability and also cutting emissions, since batteries can help store energy from intermittent renewables like wind and solar.
Crucially, this is all happening with the help of cheap Chinese batteries, though there’s been a concerted effort to reduce the US’s reliance on them. Most recently, in an executive order in late August, the Trump administration declared a national emergency that essentially bans Chinese batteries from being used in grid-scale energy storage systems.
There’s an argument to be made about reducing reliance on any single source of a crucial energy technology. But all this tension raises a broader question for me: How much should countries take advantage of cheap, available tech, versus cutting off major sources to force development of their own factories even if that comes at a higher cost?
This is hardly America’s first push to move away from Chinese influence in the battery supply chain. One of the major policy tools used in recent years is restricting the tax credits designed to incentivize use of the new technologies. Limiting the types of projects that are eligible can help reduce the cost of local technologies so they’re more competitive with otherwise cheaper imported options.
Back in 2022, the US government designed the tax credits that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act to restrict where a battery’s minerals could be mined, processed, or recycled, as well as where a battery and its components were assembled.
Those tax credits underwent a makeover in 2025, but the Trump administration has taken a similar tack. New legislation requires that starting in 2026, 55% of the cost of materials used for new energy storage projects must come from outside China and other restricted countries or the projects won’t qualify for tax credits.
And we can’t forget about tariffs. Import taxes for batteries increased to 25% in January, up from 7.5%.
But the new executive order is a more drastic move. It bans the installation of “any foreign-produced bulk-power system electric equipment” that poses a national security risk. The order specifically calls out battery energy storage systems, as well as inverters and transformers.
“An outright ban was a bit of a surprise, and it does create a bit of concern for domestic players in the US,” says Shan Tomouk, energy storage and energy lead for Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, an energy industry analyst.
The move is likely to slow deployment of grid-connected energy storage projects in the near term, according to analysis from BloombergNEF, an energy consultancy. Projects could face delays as developers wait for clarity on the rules.
Depending on the detailed guidance from the Department of Energy, which is expected by the end of the year, some projects may need to find alternative sources for their cells, whether they’re domestically produced or imported from other countries. These will likely be more expensive than Chinese imports, says Isshu Kikuma, an energy storage analyst at BloombergNEF. “Worst case, those projects could get canceled,” he says.
Technically, the order applies even to existing energy storage plants, though it’s unlikely that they’ll be taken offline because of their batteries’ origin. Since most of these plants currently use Chinese batteries, enforcing the order to the letter would essentially mean removing most installed battery energy storage from the US grid, Kikuma says.
In the longer term, the US will eventually be able to meet its own demand for batteries. The country could have enough capacity by about 2030, though some factories may not ramp up or run at their full capability, meaning domestic supply won’t actually meet demand until later in the 2030s.
New factories from LG Energy Solutions, Samsung SDI, Ford, and SK On are set to come online or ramp up by next year. In an ironic twist, a slowing EV market is helping, as some factories originally designed for vehicle batteries are retooling to build cells for grid storage instead.
But it will come at a cost. Today, batteries produced in the US are still significantly more expensive than those made in China. Even switching to imports from other countries like South Korea would likely be more expensive.
This is a crucial issue that goes beyond the US and even beyond batteries. China is miles ahead of much of the rest of the world on technologies like solar panels and batteries. Through years of government support and experience with research and manufacturing, the nation is an energy powerhouse.
There’s a delicate political balance to maintain as the world figures out how to navigate this situation. There’s cheap technology on offer, which can help drastically reduce emissions and energy costs. But there can be risks associated with relying too much on any one player for crucial technologies.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
This article was produced in partnership with Type Investigations and with support from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
When Eli Regalado first heard God speak to him, he wondered whether he was hallucinating. Now he likens the experience to having “a thought that is not my thought.” Divine words echo in his mind like a line from a movie or the memory of a loved one’s voice. “It’s not ‘You better do this,’” he says. “It’s just a knowing inside you: This is what you do.”
Holy messages arrive daily while Eli is praying, reading, or watching television. Sometimes they surface in prophetic dreams or missives from strangers. Occasionally, they appear midsentence, when he pauses to ask, “Lord, what do you want to say here?”
Eli’s wife, Kaitlyn, tends to get heavenly dispatches in the shower, when she finally has a moment to herself. Other times, she seeks counsel from above. “I’ll be writing in my journal and praying and asking questions and just believing what I’m hearing is Him,” she says.
God’s directives have been manifold. According to the Regalados, He told them to get married, buy a house, and start having kids. When Eli owned a marketing firm in Colorado, He told him what to name it, whom to hire, and which clients to take on. Then God told him to start preaching in his living room and online. Always, the couple obeyed.
In 2021, when Eli was 41 and Kaitlyn was 28, divine guidance steered them in an unexpected new direction: crypto.
That October, the Regalados later testified in court, Eli’s sister and her husband gifted the couple some of their holdings in a little-known digital coin. “Take this to my people for a wealth transfer,” Eli heard God say. He and Kaitlyn felt that they were being called to sell the cryptocurrency to fellow Christians.
Later, though they had no background in crypto, they came to believe that God wanted them to launch their own coin. Learning as they went, the Regalados created a new cryptocurrency called INDXcoin, which they promoted through family, friends, and contacts in evangelical Christian circles. “I was really feeling that this is the wave of the future,” says Debbie Bonilla, a retired pharmacy technician in her 70s who bought INDXcoin with her husband, Jose. The couple learned about the currency through friends—a minister and his wife, who had also invested. “We just trusted that their judgment was good,” Jose says.
Starting in November 2022, Debbie and Jose withdrew a total of $70,000 from their retirement accounts—a large share of their nest egg—to buy INDXcoin. In all, more than 500 people handed over a total of more than $3 million to the Regalados.
But within a year after the Bonillas bought in, the project collapsed. Investors who had entrusted the Regalados with large sums of cash lost it all, leaving many to wonder where the funds went and some to question whether they had fallen victim to an elaborate fraud.
“Poof—the money just evaporated,” Debbie told me. “Like, how does that happen?”
Though Eli believed God was leading him into crypto, he claims he was initially apprehensive. “Absolutely not,” he recalls thinking. “I don’t know anything about cryptocurrency, and I don’t want to be caught up in some church scam.”
The crypto market was booming, and the Regalados knew people who’d made a fortune investing in early-stage coins. But a growing interest in digital assets also meant a rise in crypto fraud.
In 2025, crypto scammers collected at least $14 billion worldwide, a 17% increase from the previous year, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. And in the United States, victims of fraudulent crypto investment schemes reported $7.2 billion in losses to the FBI.
Fraud is on the rise partly because many people who invest in crypto don’t fully understand how it works, and launching digital coins is relatively easy. More than 3 million cryptocurrencies were minted in August 2026 alone, according to the website CoinMarketCap. “It’s just something anybody can create,” says Jason Ghetian, a former FBI special agent who has served as an expert witness in crypto cases.
In the US, much of the crypto market lacks the oversight and investor protections in place in traditional finance, including rules around transparency and safeguarding customer assets. “There isn’t adequate disclosure; there’s fraud, there’s manipulation of the price, there’s conflicts of interest,” says Timothy Massad, former chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The sector is overseen by a tangled web of state and federal regulators, including the CFTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and others. But “every agency has its own tests and definitions,” says Carol Goforth, a law professor at the University of Arkansas who has written a textbook on crypto regulation. “It is a complicated, fragmented, and often inconsistent approach.”
After the industry spent around $135 million backing crypto-friendly candidates in the 2024 election cycle, the federal government significantly scaled back enforcement efforts. Last year, the Justice Department disbanded its unit focused on crypto crimes, and the Trump White House created a working group aimed at “eliminating regulatory overreach on digital assets.”
The SEC has dropped or retreated from the majority of its active lawsuits against crypto firms, including many with financial ties to the president, the New York Times reported. Donald Trump and his family have netted at least $2.3 billion from their crypto ventures since his reelection, Reuters recently estimated. In August 2026, the SEC proposed new rules that would narrow the circumstances in which crypto transactions fall under securities laws, further limiting the agency’s oversight of the industry. “Any future enforcement will have an uphill battle,” Goforth says.
Even when crypto projects operate aboveboard, prices are often driven by speculation, and large swings are common. Investing in crypto comes with considerable risk, experts say. “With the exception of stablecoins, crypto assets are essentially Ponzi schemes,” says Hilary Allen, a law professor at American University. “There is nothing behind them—no cash flow, no productive capacity—so the only way they can be more valuable is to draw more people in.”
In recent years, state and federal authorities have brought a series of cases against people they allege ran crypto scams that targeted religious communities—an example of what’s known as affinity fraud. Among them are a couple accused of using faith-based appeals to defraud primarily Haitian immigrants of more than $1 billion, an Instagram influencer who took in over $12 million from Muslim followers, and a Miami pastor charged with stealing millions from his Spanish-speaking congregation. “‘God told me’—who can argue with that?” Ghetian says.
“The ties you have with other people—the trust you have—is what the people who are running the scam play on,” says Tung Chan, commissioner of the Colorado Division of Securities. In a civil case filed in January 2024, she accused the Regalados of using investors’ Christian faith to dupe them into buying crypto that was “essentially worthless.”
The suit, filed in Denver District Court, alleged that the couple spent around $1.3 million—nearly 40% of the funds they raised—on personal expenses. Purchases included high-end vacations, designer clothing, jewelry, cosmetic dental work, a Range Rover, an au pair, and extensive home renovations. In her lawsuit, Chan contended that the couple’s “drive to make money” was matched only by “their reckless disregard of securities laws and profound lack of scruples towards their investors.”
Then, in July 2025, Denver’s district attorney charged the Regalados with 40 felonies, including theft, racketeering, and securities fraud. If convicted, they could face decades in prison.But the couple maintain that they haven’t done anything wrong and were simply carrying out God’s wishes.
“If you think following the Lord is reckless, then yeah, we were very reckless,” Eli told me. “Because we just listened and did what the Lord said to do.”
Eli says that when he first heard from the heavens, he was behind bars.
It was 2002, and he was 22, facing eight years in prison for stealing a Honda Civic. Eli had originally been sentenced when he was 20 but was let out after just seven months; he was sent back to jail when he violated the terms of his probation by breaking a beer bottle on a man’s face.
This time around, as Eli tells it, his public defender warned him that it was “legally impossible” that he’d be released early again. But he heard a voice in his head repeating, “I’m going to give you probation.” And then it happened: A judge suspended his sentence. The incident became core to his worldview: “It first has to … look completely impossible,” he says, “and then that’s when God resurrects it.”
After he got out of prison, Eli’s religious zeal didn’t stick. He threw himself into a worldly goal: making money. “I just need to put on this success mask,” he recalls thinking, “so that people would see me as valuable.” He marked “no” when asked about felony convictions on job applications and eventually discovered that he had an aptitude for sales. He hawked everything from vacuum cleaners to leads for contractors, before pivoting to marketing.
In 2010, Icosa Magazine, a Denver-based publication, brought Eli on as a consultant. “He is the most charismatic bullshitter I have ever met in my life,” says Jan Mazotti, who was editor-in-chief at the time. She recalls Eli telling her that Kimbal Musk, Elon Musk’s brother, had offered to let the magazine host events at his restaurant: “I called up there, and they were like, ‘I have no idea what you’re talking about.’” (Eli doesn’t recall the incident.)
In 2013, Eli launched Mad Hatter Agency, a marketing firm specializing in crowdfunding campaigns. Nikko Lobato, an early employee, observed that Eli got a rush from selling that reminded him of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in the film The Wolf of Wall Street. Eli accepted so many projects, Lobato says, that he sometimes ended up “overpromising and underdelivering.” Four clients I contacted were satisfied; three were not, including one who ended his contract “due to poor performance.” Mike Stemple, an entrepreneur and author, told me that Eli volunteered to help him market a course but never did. (Eli says they had a “personality conflict.”) “My hope, Eli,” Stemple wrote in an email, “is that you understand that your gift to be able to sell anything to anyone … can easily be destructive.”
After he was released from prison, Eli threw himself into a career in sales. “I just need to put on this success mask,” he recalls thinking, “so that people would see me as valuable.”
MATT NAGER
Eli’s personal life was chaotic. “I was always in and out of relationships,” he says. “I was drinking, partying, doing drugs.” He blames his professional missteps on cocaine use and a “nervous breakdown.” He told me that by 2018, as he approached 40, he felt “scared of not becoming somebody” and contemplated suicide. Eli was coming off a three-day cocaine bender when his mother gave him a book called The Power of Right Believing by a Singaporean pastor, Joseph Prince. It moved him deeply. He began delving into charismatic Christianity, a movement that emphasizes a strong personal relationship with God, including prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues.
Heeding divine direction, Eli says, he quit drugs and hired nearly a dozen friends and relatives to work at his marketing agency, which he renamed Grace Led Marketing. He also started leading daily Bible study with employees and preaching at weekly gatherings in his living room. In 2020, he formed a church called Victorious Grace and began broadcasting sermons on Facebook.
That summer, Eli met Kaitlyn at a party. Thirteen years his junior, Kaitlyn was slender and soft-spoken, with straight dark hair and a gleaming smile. Immediately, she told me, “I just trusted the man with my life.” On their first date, Kaitlyn was “saved” over dinner. Within four months, they wed and bought a house in Denver, and Kaitlyn began running operations at Grace Led Marketing.
By the end of 2020, however, the newlyweds’ income had begun to nosedive. Crowdfunding campaigns were underperforming and clients were paying late, they say. Eli owed over $160,000 in unpaid taxes. “I feel like a failure,” he recalls thinking.
The Regalados further strained their finances by again following what they saw as God’s will. After learning that she was pregnant in March 2021, Kaitlyn took $60,000 out of her 401(k) and paid an architect to draw up plans for a home renovation. Their vision started small but expanded, nearly doubling the home’s original square footage: enlarging their bedroom, adding another, and creating two offices, a gym, and a family room with a bar. “The Lord’s like, ‘Just do it how you want to,’” Kaitlyn recalls. Within months, they had emptied the 401(k). On the strength of another divine pronouncement, they shuttered their marketing business. “We needed a financial miracle badly,” Kaitlyn says.
One night, the Regalados woke at around 4:30 a.m. to a blaring television. Onscreen, Bill Winston, a televangelist based near Chicago, was talking about “sowing a seed.” Often associated with the prosperity gospel, the practice holds that by donating money to worthy recipients, believers create the conditions for future blessings.
“God is telling us to give all we have in both the business + personal accounts to receive 100 fold,” Kaitlyn wrote in her journal in mid-October 2021. The couple had no income and were struggling to pay their bills. Yet shortly before their first child was born, they say, they sent their last $2,718.44 to Bill Winston Ministries.
Just two weeks passed before their divine bounty seemed to arrive. Eli’s sister Raina Applegate and her husband, Daniel, gifted them a trove of cryptocurrency called Sumcoin, the Regalados later testified in their civil trial. In his testimony, Eli recalled them saying, “God is telling us to sow this into you.” (Raina did not respond to requests for comment; Daniel declined to answer specific questions but disputed our reporting and warned that Eli’s version of events should not be trusted.)
Created in 2016 by Ty Jacobsen, a 32-year-old in Idaho who published content about investing online, Sumcoin billed itself as “the world’s first index based cryptocurrency.” The coin’s website stated that its price was determined by an algorithm that tracked the performance of the top 100 cryptocurrencies. According to their civil trial testimony, the Regalados believed that the Sumcoin they had been gifted was worth around $2 million.
Soon after receiving the cryptocurrency, Eli was praying at his kitchen table when he heard God instruct him to “take this Sumcoin to my people, the church.” To the Regalados, signs that they should start selling the coin to other Christians seemed irrefutable: Kaitlyn was drawn to scripture containing the word “hidden”—which translates to kryptós in Greek. A friend who had agreed to pray about whether they should venture into crypto called to confirm: “The Lord says yes.” Despite Eli’s initial concerns about their lack of experience, the Regalados decided to proceed.
The friend, who ran a faith-based coaching business, invited people to join Eli in video calls that were part Bible study, part Sumcoin sales pitch. Within five days, the Regalados had recorded around $9,000 in profit. By February 2022, they were fielding so many queries that Eli hosted a webinar. “Sumcoin is the only coin that can’t be pumped and dumped,” he declared. “It’s very similar to, like, the S&P 500.” (Unlike stock index funds, Sumcoin had no underlying assets to back its value.) That month, the couple made over $260,000 in sales.
Yet Sumcoin was not listed on any of the major crypto exchanges, meaning that those who owned it could mainly trade it with others one-on-one at whatever price the parties agreed on. In a video call with Eli and people interested in Sumcoin, Daniel stated that “the goal is to get the coin 100% liquidable in every facet there is,” including “putting the coin on the exchanges.” The Regalados also told the people they sold Sumcoin to that it would soon appear on exchanges. Once that happened, coins would trade at the price Sumcoin’s algorithm set, according to a deck the Regalados sent one investor in February 2022. One slide put that price at more than $1,200 and included a chart offering coins for $60 to $80.
But months into peddling Sumcoin, the Regalados learned from Jacobsen, its founder, that he wasn’t planning to list it on mainstream exchanges. Jacobsen told me he never intended for the coin to be traded like a stock, asserting, “I’ve never really looked at it as an investment.” This proved to be a major point of contention between Eli and Jacobsen. “He was lying to people about what he was doing,” Jacobsen says, “about what the future was going to hold.” Eli insists, “I was relaying what I was being told.”
By June 2022, the Regalados were hearing a new heavenly instruction: “Build your own coin.”
The Regalados called it INDXcoin. Like Sumcoin, it would base its price on the value of the top 100 digital coins by market cap. Most new cryptocurrencies are tokens created on top of existing blockchains—something anyone can do in minutes through an online token generator. But Eli heard God say, “Don’t do that; it has to be its own thing.” So the Regalados chose a harder route: launching their own blockchain and native coin. They say they paid two developers who’d worked on Sumcoin $100,000 to bring the project to life. Eli says he and Kaitlyn told them, “We don’t know anything that we’re doing.”
The couplelearned on the fly, typing questions like “What is a blockchain?” into YouTube and ChatGPT. Eli saw that crypto projects often issue a white paper to outline their strategy and mechanics, so he hired a freelancer to draft one. The resulting document explained that INDXcoin’s target market included “Christian Believers” and “less experienced crypto enthusiasts.” A website the Regalados created referred to INDXcoin as “the perfect crypto” and touted “incredible growth with minimal risk.” (It noted that INDXcoin was “not a fund” and “does not own the coins it indexes.”)
Before striking upon crypto, the couple struggled to pay bills and prayed for “a financial miracle.”
MATT NAGER
The Regalados gave the people they’d sold Sumcoin to INDXcoin instead. Friends, relatives, and others in their religious network spread the word, and the couple offered some of them referral commissions of 30%. The Regalados also gifted INDXcoin—what they considered “sowing”—to ministries and individuals, some of whom went on to buy more. And they publicized the project on social media, a podcast, and a Christian TV program, as well as through a promotional contest.
In a video sent to prospective buyers, Eli was open about his criminal past and lack of crypto experience. Quoting scripture, he hyped the venture as the latest in “a chain reaction of miracles” and said, “God wants you to have things.”
Debbie and Jose Bonilla, the retired couple who bought $70,000 worth of INDXcoin, say that when they watched one of Eli’s presentations before investing, he appeared to be well versed in scripture. “He seemed sincere,” Debbie says. “He seemed like he was hearing from God.” Because it was a “God-driven vehicle,” she says, she “didn’t feel like we would have nefarious things going on that happen with other cryptocurrencies.”
A more tangible prospect also beckoned. “There was an explanation of how wonderful the returns would be,” Jose says. “That was the selling point—that you could become rich overnight.”
Initially, the Regalados told buyers that they were working to list INDXcoin on established exchanges. They learned that many platforms conduct a legal review to determine whether a coin could be considered a security. For crypto projects, courts have ruled that “when you sell something to people, and people have some reasonable expectation of profit from your actions, then it’s a security,” Massad, the former CFTC chair, told me. Issuers of coins deemed securities must follow the same laws governing stocks and bonds, including registering with the SEC and providing detailed financial disclosures.
The Regalados were not complying with those rules, and Eli began consulting attorneys, whose assessments were concerning. “Freaking out here,” he wrote in his journal in the summer of 2022. “Lawyers are saying it could be a security. Which means I illegally sold this to 100+ people.” But after praying with a “prophetic team” they’d convened to advise them, the Regalados continued selling INDXcoin.
By the fall of 2022, the couple seemed to have found a way forward: After meeting with an attorney named John Benemerito, they decided to position INDXcoin as a “utility” coin, the main purpose of which would be unlocking access to products or services—akin to tokens redeemed in a video game. The Regalados devised a plan to create Kingdom Wealth Community, a members-only platform where INDXcoin holders would have access to coaching, merchandise, courses on finance and spirituality, and more. After reviewing their vision, Benemerito stated in a letter that INDXcoin didn’t need to comply with securities laws, because “it does not provide a direct expectation of profits.”
“Utility coins do not need to be asset-backed as their value is within the platform itself,” a lawyer from Benemerito’s firm later wrote to the Regalados. “However, if the intent is to give the coin a value independent of the platform, then it would need to be asset-backed for it to maintain its value.”
Eli later admitted in court that he did not inform Benemerito that people who bought INDXcoin wanted to make money. (Benemerito told me that “any legal opinion issued by my firm was based on the facts and representations provided to us by the client.”)
Around the same time, Eli told me, the Regalados were having trouble getting INDXcoin listed on existing exchanges. They decided to build not just Kingdom Wealth Community but also their own platform—Kingdom Wealth Exchange—where people could trade INDXcoin for bitcoin, ether, and US dollars. Hundreds of crypto exchanges exist, but the top few handle the vast majority of transactions; it’s rare for cryptocurrency creators to build an exchange just to enable trade in their coin. But the Regalados had told buyers there would be a way to cash out. “There was a lot of pressure as more people were coming in,” Kaitlyn says. “Like, ‘Oh, we gotta get them an exit.’”
The Regalados announced that it would take five weeks to build the exchange, but development work, which they’d outsourced to an Indian firm they’d found online, dragged on into early 2023. “Nothing was working right,” Eli says.
Other roadblocks piled up. A Singaporean consulting firm the Regalados hired suggested that they register Kingdom Wealth Exchange as a money services business in Canada, “allegedly because they were the fastest,” Kaitlyn says, but that process also stalled for months. Meanwhile, the members-only community and crypto wallets the Regalados were building were rife with technical issues. When the couple commissioned a security audit of INDXcoin’s blockchain, it scored 0 out of 10. A follow-up audit in March 2023 noted that the issues had been fixed but raised additional concerns, and it yielded a score of only 5.4. (Eli announced that they’d “passed with flying colors.”)
Insiders were also voicing misgivings about the project’s financial footing. During a live YouTube update back in November 2022, two viewers asked Eli to comment on INDXcoin’s “liquidity pool.” Earlier that month, FTX, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges, had collapsed after fears about its financial health triggered billions of dollars in customer withdrawals. Eli assured viewers that he and Kaitlyn were working to ensure that they had sufficient reserves and that “there isn’t going to be some FTX meltdown.”
Months later, when the Regalados sent their business plan and white paper to an INDXcoin investor who worked as a financial consultant, he cautioned that “the project is seriously undercapitalized” and wrote in an email, “Projected annual revenues look like they were just plucked from the air.”
And when Roger Gauthier, another investor who referred people to INDXcoin, asked Eli whether he had set aside funds for purchasers who wanted out, Eli said no. “That was my first flag of warning,” Gauthier says.
Dan Wheeler, a crypto influencer known as 360Trader who advised the Regalados on INDXcoin, says he repeatedly warned Eli that the couple needed hundreds of millions of dollars to back the stated value of coins sold and given away. “If there’s no money there,” Wheeler says, “it’s worthless.”
By April 2023, Eli was growing more frustrated: Kingdom Wealth Exchange was nearly six months behind schedule, and payments to the developers in India had ballooned to more than $50,000. People were bombarding him with messages asking when the platform would open. “There’s this humiliation—no one likes failing,” Eli told me. “I succumbed to that pressure.”
The Regalados were staying at a luxury resort in the Florida Keys dotted with palm trees and bougainvillea. One day, Eli was praying on a wicker couch in an open-air tiki hut when he heard God tell him it was time to launch the exchange. He found Kaitlyn and told her, “We’re live on April 11.”
Kaitlyn objected. During testing, the platform still had bugs, including trouble verifying users’ identities. The Regalados hadn’t been able to open a bank account for the exchange, which meant users could transact only in bitcoin and ether, not US dollars and other fiat currencies. And the Regalados hadn’t gotten far in building the community space they’d discussed with their lawyer, having launched just one course.
“We don’t have to have it perfect,” Eli told Kaitlyn. “Let’s just rock and roll. Let’s just get money in. Let’s get these people off our back.”
In the days leading up to the launch, the Regalados discussed limiting sales, a practice crypto platforms sometimes use to manage liquidity and volatility. If INDXcoin holders dumped all the currency they’d bought or gotten for free, it would take over $300 million to fulfill sales orders. But Eli kept hearing God say, “Don’t limit me.” He pushed back: “Then we can basically have what’s called a run on the bank, right?” The evening before the launch, the couple prayed again. “Kait + I got the same verse,” Eli wrote in his journal. “Don’t turn selling off.”
On the morning of April 11, Kaitlyn was beginning to feel optimistic, and Eli was buzzing. “This thing’s gonna explode,” he thought. At 11 a.m., Eli appeared on a livestream. A print of a gray wolf loomed over his shoulder. “Hello INDXcoin family,” he began, clapping for emphasis. “We are live!”
For investors, returns finally seemed within reach. The exchange initially showed INDXcoin trading at around 10 times what people had paid for it, based on how the crypto market was performing overall; the Bonillas’ $70,000 investment looked to be worth more than $716,000.
MATT NAGER
But nearly an hour into the broadcast—after slides of Bible verses and rosy projections—a viewer posted a complaint in the chat: “Exchange says I can’t sell INDX.” “It’s probably just because the liquidity isn’t there right now,” Eli explained calmly. “Just wait a little bit.” Ten minutes later, someone else wrote that his sale wasn’t going through. “Just be patient,” Eli said. “The Lord will provide for Himself.”
Over the next few hours, the Regalados kept checking the exchange’s dashboard. Dozens of transactions were rolling in, but the problem was obvious: Sales were dwarfing purchases. By the afternoon, the $30,000 they’d put in to facilitate trades had been drained. They decided to add another $100,000 to the pot.
A couple hours later, Eli was out getting coffee when he called Kaitlyn to check in. She was crying. “All the liquidity is gone,” she said.
The next day, the Regalados announced that they were suspending sales. “That was when we saw that we could be in trouble,” Jose Bonilla says.
Eli told me that after the launch failed, he felt “crushing anxiety” but heard God remind him, “It’s impossible to mess this up.” He and Kaitlyn took steps they hoped would salvage the project, but months passed, and they kept sales on hold.
In June, Jose emailed the Regalados, explaining that he needed to withdraw half of his investment to fund a community development initiative he’d founded in his native Colombia. Eli replied that they had just reopened sales—limited to one coin per day and 10 per month. When they did so, the exchange had around $20,000 available to fulfill sales orders. “Liquidating HALF of your coins is not probable at this juncture,” Eli wrote. Three days after sales resumed, the Regalados halted them again, blaming a technical glitch.
When Jose followed up a few months later about pulling out half of his investment, Eli replied, “At this time there is zero funds to do that.” In November 2023, the Regalados shut down the exchange and took INDXcoin’s blockchain offline.
“Shame, condemnation, suicidal thoughts have just been pouring in hot and heavy on me,” Eli shared in a video update, standing before an image of a swirling purple cosmos. “Where did I get this wrong?”
Two months later, the Regalados learned that Colorado’s securities regulator was accusing them of committing fraud and selling unregistered securities. The state soon added to the suit 12 defendants it said had received commissions for selling INDXcoin, alleging that they had also sold unregistered securities. Among them were Eli’s brother-in-law, Daniel Applegate,and a company associated with Gauthier, the INDXcoin investor. A judge entered a default judgment after they failed to respond and ordered them to pay judgments of $15,000 and $34,400, respectively. Eli’s father, Eligio Regalado Sr., who was also accused of securities fraud, agreed to refund $122,000 to friends, relatives, and colleagues without admitting or denying liability. (Gauthier denied wrongdoing; Eli’s father, through his attorney, declined to comment. Daniel denied being a part of INDXcoin and, despite being named in the lawsuit, claims that it has nothing to do with him and his wife.)
“I really can’t speak to whether or not he heard God tell him to do it,” Chan, the Colorado securities commissioner who filed the suit, told me. “Even if [the Regalados] meant it from the goodness of their heart, the problem is, it’s not fair to the investors … They lied and omitted key things.”
I spoke with 20 INDXcoin investors, and nearly all had heard about the coin from a trusted friend, relative, or faith leader. Most had little or no experience with crypto. They funded their purchases by raiding retirement funds, cashing out a pension, using proceeds from selling a small business, or taking out a home equity line of credit they’re still paying interest on. One buyer, a disabled veteran in his 70s, hoped profits from his investment would help him recover financially after he accrued debt while being treated for cancer. Another, who had retired, was forced to get a job at Home Depot in his late 60s. “It’s a gut-wrenching, horrible, helpless feeling,” he says.
Investors are divided on whether they were conned. Jose Bonilla, who reported the Regalados to authorities, believes that their actions were “totally intentional.” “They are using a spiritual excuse to defraud,” he says. His wife, Debbie, disagrees and thinks that the Regalados simply “got in way over their heads.”
A number of people who bought in still support the Regalados. “They’re hearing God’s voice and trying their best to follow it,” says Troy Bramblet, a former pastor who lost more than $18,000 on INDXcoin. “It doesn’t guarantee success.”
Wheeler, the crypto influencer who advised the Regalados, also alerted authorities about INDXcoin but remains unsure whether the couple set out to fleece people. “They are zealots—they are literally blinded,” he says. “If you believe God is going to do a thing, then are you scamming people? No. But look how they spent their money.”
In a video posted days after the case was filed, Eli admitted that he and Kaitlyn had in fact “sold a cryptocurrency with no clear exit.” He acknowledged that they had pocketed $1.3 million—including money spent on “a home remodel that the Lord told us to do.”
Last November, I visited the Regalados in the three-bedroom townhouse they rent in a Denver suburb dominated by office parks and cookie-cutter condos. The house they own is uninhabitable—renovations stopped halfway through the project, after they stopped making payments.
In person, Eli is friendly and charming, with a restless energy and subterranean intensity occasionally betrayed by his stare. He is prone to lengthy monologues delivered with such conviction they make you second-guess bald facts. Kaitlyn, who comes across as reserved yet frank, has “Believe” tattooed on her wrist. They told me that they argued frequently after INDXcoin collapsed, but when I was there, Kaitlyn listened to her husband attentively and always laughed at his jokes.
On a sunny Thursday afternoon, I followed the Regalados upstairs to a corner of their bedroom containing a tiny desk and a whiteboard. The room was modestly furnished with what they said were secondhand finds. The bed was unmade, and a Bible lay on the floor.
Eli was preparing to address members of INDXcoin’s private forum in his first live call in nearly two months. He closed his eyes and prayed. “Just allow me to speak simply,” he said, like a teenager asking a parent for a favor. “Just be able to use analogies, to be able to bring it down to their level of understanding.” “Amen,” Kaitlyn said.
After hunting breathlessly for a laptop stand, Eli grabbed a stack of journals—full of divine revelations—and plopped his computer on top. He switched on the camera, and his image appeared before a faux backdrop of potted plants. Eli had a receding hairline and stubbly beard, and he wore a black T-shirt and a silver cross on a thick chain. Before letting callers in, he ran his fingers through his hair and his tongue over his teeth—now perfect, thanks to cosmetic dental work paid for with proceeds from coin sales.
“Okay. Awesome. All right. So hey, good afternoon, INDXcoin community!” Eli began, flashing a smile. “We’ve got some exciting updates.” Then, in the tone of a tech founder reporting on a strong quarter, he shared the news: Two months earlier, a judge had ruled against the Regalados in their civil case, and they were now facing criminal charges from the district attorney’s office.
“Someone asked me, ‘Are you going to do a plea?’” He paused to sip water. “Short answer is no … We haven’t done anything wrong.”
The Regalados deny orchestrating a scam. “If you’re giving massive amounts of money away at the expense of your own self and family, that doesn’t hold up,” Eli says. The couple estimate that they’ve gifted $300,000 in cash, plus a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, a BMW, and a Louis Vuitton bag, to churches and individuals through sowing. They also gave away millions of INDXcoin—90% of the supply. (Eli told me, “No one sows without expecting something in return,” though not necessarily from the recipient.)
In their civil case, the Regalados represented themselves because they couldn’t afford lawyers. They argued that INDXcoin wasn’t a security because it was a utility coin and that the price was set by “immutable algorithm.” They claimed that their technology provider had caused the exchange to fail, consultants had led them astray on compliance, and attorneys had said they didn’t need to maintain liquidity or disclose spending. (Benemerito, the lawyer the Regalados had retained, told me, “Our firm does not advise clients to violate the law.”)
The judge disagreed, finding that INDXcoin was a security and that the Regalados had misled investors about its true value and risks, where their funds went, how many coins had been given away, and more. Noting a “lack of understanding of the harm they have caused,” she ordered them to pay nearly $3.4 million in damages—the amount of money they’d raised. “Ascribing an algorithmic value to a coin does not make it ‘worth’ that amount,” the judge wrote. “In reality, INDXcoin was worthless because no one wanted to buy it.”
When I visited, two months had passed since the ruling. The Regalados still hadn’t read the judge’s opinion in full but had decided to appeal. Later, they would draft briefs with help from Google Scholar and AI. (The case is still pending.)
Besides filing court documents and preparing for their criminal case, the couple spend their days like typical suburban parents: taking their kids to playgrounds, walking their chiweenie, working out. They still host biweekly Bible studies. Sometimes they ride their Harley to Palmer Lake or the Rocky Mountain foothills. (“We only wear helmets when it’s windy or cold,” Kaitlyn says.) Their assets were frozen soon after the civil case was filed; Eli had found work selling roofs but says he was fired when his employer learned about his legal troubles. He declines to disclose his current gig. “It’s not related to marketing and not related to crypto,” he says.
After they were sued over INDXcoin, Eli wondered, “Did I just make this up? Am I crazy?” But he and Kaitlyn concluded that the divine signs they’d received were unmistakable. They believe that INDXcoin will eventually gain traction among world leaders losing faith in the US dollar. “We are privately making preparations,” Eli told me.
“God already saw this coming,” he assured viewers during the November video update. “He’s looking at us and saying, ‘Are you willing to believe me no matter what you see?’”
After the call ended, Eli began leafing through his journals and reading sections aloud. Since our first conversation months earlier, the Regalados had been remarkably amenable reporting subjects. They told me that their criminal defense attorneys had advised them against talking to reporters, but they sat for more than a dozen interviews with me. They provided access to INDXcoin’s private forum and supplied emails, photos, and spreadsheets—even though some documents don’t paint their decision-making in a favorable light. Once, Eli emailed to “come clean” that an anecdote he’d told had been slightly embellished. He apologized and assured me, “Everything else I have said is 100% in line with no stretches or exaggeration.”
The Regalados told me they trusted me in part because God had signed off: Not long after I’d first contacted them, they’d walked into a room with a TV playing Family Feud, and the answer displayed on the screen was “MIT.” Their approach highlighted how they had won over buyers so effectively: They were likable, shared vulnerable details, and telegraphed transparency.
Still, the Regalados didn’t appear to be feeding me an act they’d just cooked up. Instead, they seemed fully committed to their own narrative: one that paints them as righteous underdogs fulfilling a holy mission, no matter the cost. To let their faith waver would mean that everything they had lost—friends, their home, their reputations—had been in vain. It would mean admitting that they had failed. It would mean that no one was coming to save them.
Even ending up in prison wouldn’t persuade the Regalados that they’d misheard God. “He’s going to deliver you from everything, so you won’t be there forever,” Kaitlyn says, “and it might just be part of the story.”
During my visit, the Regalados agreed to show me an earlier chapter. We piled into their Ford Raptor truck, their kids in the back, and drove 20 minutes north to a quiet cul-de-sac in a leafy residential neighborhood.
We slowed near a hulking structure of rotting wooden boards. Red and brown weeds engulfed the lot and threatened to swallow the sidewalk. Out front, a tattered mattress was slumped on its side. Neighbors had sighted squatters and, as winter approached, feared fires. The Regalados still owed their contractor nearly $110,000 for work completed.
Construction on the Regalados’ home stopped after their crypto venture collapsed.
MATT NAGER
I asked whether we could get out, but Eli and Kaitlyn didn’t want to run into anyone. “I just don’t want to have a conversation of like, ‘When are you gonna cut your grass?’” Eli said. (The city had sent them violation notices the previous year for not maintaining the property.)
As we drove away, I asked how it felt to see the ghost of their dream home.
“It used to hurt,” Kaitlyn said.
“Here’s this unfulfilled promise,” Eli added.
But it didn’t bother them anymore.
“If we lose the house,” Kaitlyn said, “that means we’re getting something way bigger and way better.”
They made a U-turn at the end of the street and, seat belts unbuckled, rounded the corner without looking back.
Katia Savchuk is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Her work has appeared in the New Yorker, Forbes, Mother Jones, and many other publications.
Login
